White Pine news. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1920-1923, 1922-07-30
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
EXPLAINS Ills POSITION


CONFINED FROM LACE oNED
with Attorney Whitley. who advised
him as | had, but Mr.. Whiteley sug-
gested that. in view OF the great i'm
portanee of the matter, the opinion
of the attorney general be had. Mr..
Willard and | together framed mp \
telegram explaining the facts in de-
tail. The wire was sen over Mr.. Mil.
lard's signature. | never saw the
reply but next day Mr.. Willard told
me he had received a reply stating
most emphatically that r%eadyertisc-
ment must be had.
May % the board aske ne If Mr..
Frank ". Willard could legally ne
employed to superintend tho work,
Mr.. Ed Willard not voting. Feeling
confident he could be. the same day
| wrote the board as follows:
TT beg to state that there are
no legal objections to the en-
ployment of Mr.. Frank Willard
as such Superintendent; provid-
ed. however. Mr.. Willard is APP
pointed to this position by the
votes of the other two members
of the board-Mr. Ed Willard
not voting.
| did not then submit this question
10 the attorney general for many rea-
sons, among them: II every district
attorney In the state passed every
question put to aim up 10 the attor-
ney general that officer would require
a dozen deputies. Any way, the dis
trict attorney Is the legal adviser OF
every officer in the county and he
is not supposed TO pass the buck to
Carson City except in most excep.
tional cases. After praetieing law
twenty-six years and having been
sustained by the attorney general in
every case | had heretofore submit
ted 10 him | was beginning To have
at least some confidence In my iudg-
ment.
June . an article appeared In the
Reno Gazette saying that the attorney
general had given an opinion that Ike
nepotism act applied TO boards as
well as Officers" | then asked the
attorney general if it is his opinion
that the act applies 10 a board Of ed
ucation. June 26 he replied as fol
lows
Wherever the power OF APP
nointmeDt subsists IN a board,
no valid appointment may ne
made by that board Of Al en-
ploye within the prohibited de
gree of consanPuinity or affinity.
even though the member of the
board so related did not vote or
voted against the appointment.
as the appointment when made
is the act of the board for which
each member is legally response
bic. II the nepotism act. stat
ntes of 1915. page Il, Were 9th
erwise construed 1t would be
subject to repeated tyasions and
he policy of the act would there
by be frustrated
| hen wrote the school board as
follows.
To the Honorable Board OF
Education of White Pine County,
Nevada: Gentlemen-May %,
1922, | informed you that there
IA no legal objection, under
The nepotism act of 1915, to your
hiring Mr.. Frank Willard as SUI
Berintendent OF the sehoolhouse
construction, providing Mr.. Ed
Willard does not vote for the APP
pointment. This opinion of mine
was based partially upon the de-
cision rendered by the attorney
general In 1918 to the board %
government of the Nevada school
of industry. and partially upon
my own reasoning. The above
act says no public OFFICIAL
shall. etc. The word board In
not used in the act. and ] am
still of the opinion thai the act
loes not prohibit he board act
ing through It's members. other
than Mr.. Ed Willard. from APP
pointing Mr.. Frank Willard.
However. | am Just In receipt
of a letter from the present at
torney general stating that Mr..
Frank Willard cannot. under the
nepotism act, be hired TO super
intend the work.
Il regret exceedingly the posi-
ton my first opinion may have
caused you. believe now. ae
did then. that Mr.. Frank Willard
a lawfully hold the position.
Notwithstanding the present at
torney general holds otherwise.
Nothing except a supreme court
decision can finally settle the
matter
l tuch taiheu WIN MT, FRANK MIi-
lard. suggesting to him that he nut
in a bill for his services to date ard
| would advise its payment. he hay
ing worked under my opinion of MAY
90 that he could legally be employed.
I further told him that IL he contin-
ued. since the attorney general bad
ruled otherwise. he might have TO
sue for his pay. So far as know
Mr. Millard has not put In any claim.
II he does and my advice Ia asked ty
the auditor or treasurer I hsall In.
form him that my personal belief IL
that the claim is lawful but that the
attorney general believes otherwise.
and by virtue of his high office his
decisions should take precedence
over those of any county officer.
CHAS. A. WALKER.
District Attorney.