Columbus, Ga. v. Board of Water Com'rs of Columbus, Ga., S91A0205

Decision Date10 May 1991
Docket NumberNo. S91A0205,S91A0205
Citation261 Ga. 219,403 S.E.2d 791
PartiesCOLUMBUS, GEORGIA v. BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Eugene Hardwick Polleys, Jr., Columbus, for Columbus, Ga.

James E. Humes, II, Joseph L. Waldrep, Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild, Columbus, for Board of Water Com'rs of Columbus, Ga.

FLETCHER, Justice.

In July of 1990, the Council of Columbus (the "council") appointed one of its members to serve on the Board of Water Commissioners of Columbus (the "board"). The board filed a petition for declaratory judgment or, in the alternative, an application for writ of quo warranto in the Superior Court of Muscogee County (the "court") seeking to have the council's appointment to the board invalidated.

The court found that council members are not eligible to serve concurrently as council members and as board members because such would violate OCGA § 36-30-4 and would constitute a common law conflict of interest. As a result, the court held the council member's appointment to the board to be null and void and issued a writ of quo warranto nullifying the appointment. Columbus appeals and we affirm.

1. OCGA § 36-30-4 provides:

A councilman or alderman of a municipal corporation shall be ineligible to hold any other municipal office during the term of office for which the councilman or alderman was chosen unless he first resigns as councilman or alderman before entering such other office. This Code section shall apply to all elected officials of a municipal corporation.

The legislation under which the board was created provides that the board is a "subordinate branch" of Columbus and that board members are officers of Columbus. Ga.L.1902, pp. 370, 372, 375, 376. From these facts, it seems clear that membership of a council member on the board is prohibited by OCGA § 36-30-4. Columbus argues, however, that its charter gives it the specific authorization necessary to fit it within the recognized exception to that statute which was enunciated in Fowler v. Mitcham, 249 Ga. 400, 402, 291 S.E.2d 515 (1982) when this court stated:

Consistently with the common-law rule against conflicts of interest in local government, our courts have held that it is contrary to public policy to permit an official board having the power to appoint to an office to exercise that power by appointing one or more of their own body, unless the statute conferring the appointing power expressly authorizes self-appointment.

Columbus' charter was amended in 1971 to provide, among other things, that the council has the authority to: "redefine the manner of appointment, membership and powers and duties of said Board of Water Commissioners after the expiration of a period of eighteen months following the effective date of this Charter." Ga.L.1971, Ex. Sess., p. 2050. The council contends that such amendment is specific authorization for self-appointment because if the council can redefine the board's membership, surely it can appoint one of its own to the board.

We disagree. Passing over the question of whether a charter provision that specifically authorizes self-appointment would be valid if it were contrary to the general law codified in OCGA § 36-30-4 or whether its effect would be the creation of a common law conflict of interest, we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Doritis v. Doritis
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 21 Enero 2014
    ...294 Ga. 421754 S.E.2d 53DORITISv.DORITIS.No ... ...
  • Davis v. City of Macon
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 16 Julio 1992
    ...higher office not entitled to salary based upon advertisement computing qualifying fee incorrectly); Columbus v. Board of Water Commissioners of Columbus, 261 Ga. 219, 403 S.E.2d 791 (1991) (conflict of interest for city council member to serve on city board).2 Earth Management Inc. v. Hear......
  • Worley v. Whiddon
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 10 Mayo 1991
    ...403 S.E.2d 799 ... 261 Ga. 218 ... No. S91G0169 ... Supreme Court of ... ...
  • Walters v. City of Dublin, S92A0555
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 11 Junio 1992
    ...city council candidates, but rather to control political activity of city employees and officers. Compare Columbus v. Board of Water Commissioners, 261 Ga. 219, 403 S.E.2d 791 (1991) (OCGA § 36-30-4 and common law conflict of interest prevent city council member from serving concurrently as......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT