The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 6736 October 21, 1992 CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Person serves as attorney for the school district and his spouse serves as a teacher in the same school district A conflict of interest does not exist if an individual serves as an attorney for a school district at the same time his spouse serves as a teacher in the same school district. Honorable Robert A. DeMars State Representative The Capitol Lansing, Michigan You have asked whether a conflict of interest exists if an individual serves as an attorney for a school district at the same time his spouse serves as a teacher in the same school district. The conflict of interest statute, 1968 PA 317, MCL 15.321 et seq; MSA 4.1700(51) et seq, prohibits, in section 2, a public servant from being a party, directly or indirectly, to any contract between himself and the public entity of which he is an officer or employee. Pursuant to section 8, the statute is the sole law in this state concerning conflicts of interest involving public servants and public contracts. In Thompson v School District No. 1 of Moorland Township, 252 Mich 629; 233 NW 439 (1930), the Supreme Court held that it was not against public policy for a husband, who was a school board member, to sign the contract of employment to hire his wife as a teacher in the same school district. The Court stated, at pp 630-631: In passing upon the question presented, we should be mindful of section 11478, 3 Comp.Laws 1915, which provides: "Each and every married woman in the State of Michigan shall be absolutely entitled to have, hold, own, retain and enjoy any and all earnings acquired by any such married woman as the result of her personal efforts; and to sell or otherwise dispose of any and all such earnings, and to make contracts in relation thereto to the same extent that any such married woman could have or do if unmarried." Notwithstanding the provision of the school law broadly provides that a school officer shall not "be personally interested in any way whatever, directly or indirectly" in the contract with the district, we think it is not applicable to the case here presented. Under section 11478, above quoted, Mr. Spoelman clearly has no financial interest in this contract. Any wages which may be paid Mrs. Spoelman as a teacher will be her individual property the same as though she were an entire stranger to Mr. Spoelman. The statute does not apply to one having only a remote interest which a school officer might have under many and varied circumstances. Relying on identical statutory language, Rupert v VanBuren County, 296 Mich 240, 244; 295 NW 630 (1941), held that a prosecuting attorney may appoint his wife as a stenographer in his office, noting that the financial interest of a married woman is separate from the interest of her husband. (1) Based on these controlling precedents, OAG, 1975-1976, No 4869, p 95 (June 4, 1975), concluded that a married woman may serve as the director of a county department of social services where her spouse is a county commissioner in the same county. Appended to that opinion is a letter opinion of the Attorney General to Representative Hollister dated February 3, 1975, which concluded that there was no conflict of interest if an individual served on a board of education while his spouse served as an employee of the board. The current statute dealing with conflicts of interest, 1968 PA 317, supra, is similar to the statutory provision concerning contracts that was relied upon by the Supreme Court in Thompson, supra. Here there is no prohibited contractual conflict of interest under 1968 PA 317, supra, since neither spouse is on both sides of the same contract with the school district. Research has failed to disclose any other statutory provision that would prohibit one spouse from serving as an attorney for a school district and the other spouse from teaching in the same school district. It is my opinion, therefore, that a conflict of interest does not exist if an individual serves as an attorney for a school district at the same time his spouse serves as a teacher in the same school district. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General (1 The right of a married woman to retain her own earnings is now established by MCL 557)