15.485 Undisclosed interest or conflict of interest; referral to board of ethics; review by director or designee; reconsideration of action.

369 words·~2 min read·/mi/chapter-15/15-485

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Sec. 5.

(1)A person who has reason to believe that a board member has failed to disclose an interest described in section 3(1)(a) or has an interest that is not required to be disclosed but that would have a tendency to affect the ability of the member to render an impartial decision on a matter may request, not later than 1 year after the board takes any action on the matter, that the director of the department or his or her designee consider the issue of a conflict of interest as to that matter. The director or his or her designee shall investigate the matter and decide the issue of whether or not the board member has an undisclosed interest described in section 3(1)(a) or has another conflict of interest sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the board member could render an impartial decision. The director or his or her designee may refer the matter to the board of ethics created in section 3 of 1973 PA 196, MCL 15.343, at his or her discretion.

(2)If the director or his or her designee determines under subsection

(1)that a board member has an undisclosed interest or a conflict of interest that is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the board member could render an impartial decision, the department shall review the action to determine if that board member cast a deciding vote in any action the board took regarding the matter in which there is a reasonable doubt of the board member's ability to have rendered an impartial decision. If the action did not depend on the vote of that board member, the action of the board stands. If that board member was the deciding vote in an action regarding the matter, the board shall reconsider the action without the participation of the board member who was found to have an interest that was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether he or she could have rendered an impartial decision.

History: 2014, Act 96 , Eff. July 1, 2014