School Directors Barred from Self-Dealing
The Supreme Court rules that school directors cannot bypass competitive contracts by doing the work themselves and billing the district.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Olympia, June 29.—Necessity is not a defense for a violation of that provision of the school code which prohibits a school director from having any interest, directly or indirectly, in any contract or work done for the school district. The supreme court last Saturday ruled on this question in reversing the case of Thomas J. Miller, appellant, vs. O. D. Sullivan and A. A. Phillips, treasurer of Thurston county, directing the lower court to issue an order enjoining the treasurer from paying a warrant to O. D. Sullivan for $25.30 in payment of claims for work done on the school house of district No. 3 in this county. In defense of the action, Mr. Sullivan maintained that the directors had been unable to get certain improvements made to the school house by contract and were unable to secure carpenters to do the work. The directors finally secured the services of one carpenter, and the three directors—O. D. Sullivan, A. Spillman, and A. L. Sturne—assisted him to make the necessary improvements. The warrant in question was drawn in favor of Director Sullivan, but it was to satisfy all claims in connection with the work, including the services of the directors at $2 per day. The lower court dismissed the action through failure of proof, but the supreme court holds that the facts are sufficient and that no condition could justify the violation of the law, which is clear on the subject.
“No condition could justify the violation of the law, which is clear on the subject.”
This ruling highlights a fundamental principle of public ethics: that personal convenience or local labor shortages cannot override the legal safeguards designed to prevent conflicts of interest in public contracting. Even small-scale 'DIY' public projects require adherence to competitive processes to ensure accountability.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.