Whether a member of a community mental health board created by Act No. 258 of the Public Acts of 1974, may serve while his or her spouse is employed by a facility or program funded and directly controlled by the board.

'A conflict of interest arises when the personal interest of a public official places him in a position where he cannot execute his public duties without affecting his private intereste, thus denying the public the fair, impartial and objective judgment to which it is entitled.

'1911 PA 196; MCLA 557.11; MSA 26.171, states:

"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.'

'The first of two important cases which relied upon 1911 PA 196, supra, was Thompson v School District No. 1 of Moorland Township, 252 Mich 629; 233 NW 439 (1930). The issue presented to the court was whether it was 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 school district. The court stated:

"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 [1911 PA 196], 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.' [252 Mich 629, 632 (1930)]

'The court concluded:

"We are of the opinion that the instant contract should not be held to be in violation of the quoted provision of the school law, nor do we know of any good reason why it should be held to be contrary to public policy. This contract is not of such a nature that it cannot be fulfilled without reaching beyond the parties and working or tending to work an injury to the community at large, hence it is not contrary to public policy.' [252 Mich 629, 632 (1930)]

'A second case which based its decision on 1911 PA 196, supra, was Rupert v Van Buren County, 296 Mich 240; 295 NW 630 (1941). The Court stated:

"It is also urged that it is against public policy for a prosecuting attorney to appoint his wife as stenographer in his official office. One of the reasons urged is that the appointing power may receive some portion of the salary paid to the appointee. In passing upon this question we have in mind . . . [1911 PA 196]

"Under this section a married woman is entitled to her earnings; and in our opinion the prosecuting attorney's appointment of his wife stenographer in his office violates no theory of public policy.' [296 Mich 240, 242-244 (1941)]

'Members of boards of education, like other public servants, are subject to the provisions of 1968 PA 317; MCLA 15.321 et seq; MSA 4.1700(51) et seq. The effect of 1968 PA 317, is to prevent a public servant from being a party, either directly or indirectly, to any contract between himself and the public entity which he serves. This statute is similar in effect as that relied on by the court in the Thompson case, supra.

'In view of the foregoing, it is my opinion that an individual may serve on a Board of Education while his wife serves as an employee of said Board.'

Assuming the first question is answered in the affirmative, may said member of the community mental health board lawfully vote on proposals that directly or indirectly affect the functions of the facility or program employing the spouse of that board member?