1-102(1). THE PARTICULAR CHARTER PROVISIONS WOULD HAVE TO BE REVIEWED AS TO THEIR BREADTH TO DETERMINE IF ANY PROVISION WOULD BE APPLICABLE, AND THIS OFFICE IS FORBIDDEN BY STATE LAW TO REVIEW INDIVIDUAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING ANY FORMAL OPINION AS TO THEIR RELEVANCE AND MEANING IN A PARTICULAR CASE. FOR EXAMPLE, GENERAL STATE LAW FORBIDS ANY PUBLIC OFFICER FROM APPOINTING OR VOTING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF PERSONS RELATED TO THEM WITHIN THE THIRD DEGREE OF AFFINITY OR CONSANGUINITY TO ANY SALARIED POSITION IN GOVERNMENT. 21 O.S. 481 (1981). HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN ADVISED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN OPINION NO. 83-176 THAT THESE PROVISIONS ONLY APPLY TO COMPENSATED POSITIONS. AN INDIVIDUAL CITY CHARTER MIGHT WELL BE ABLE TO FURTHER RESTRICT THIS TYPE OF NEPOTISM CONTROL EVEN FURTHER AND WOULD AT LEAST HAVE TO BE EXAMINED IN ORDER TO REPLY TO YOUR QUESTION, IF ONLY TO BE DISCARDED AS NOT RELEVANT.
IN CONCLUSION, IT MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION THAT NEITHER OF THE STATUTES THAT YOU HAVE HIGHLIGHTED IN YOUR LETTER APPEAR TO APPLY TO A SITUATION WHERE A CHARTER MUNICIPALITY'S GOVERNING BOARD SEEKS TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF A SPOUSE OF ONE OF ITS MEMBERS TO A MUNICIPAL HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, AS SUCH OFFICES ARE TECHNICALLY NOT MUNICIPAL OFFICES. ADDITIONALLY, ANY REVIEW OF THE PROPRIETY OF ANY ACTION TAKEN BY AN OFFICER OF A CHARTER MUNICIPALITY MUST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER, WHICH TYPE OF REVIEW IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS LETTER. I HOPE THAT THIS INFORMATION IS OF SOME ASSISTANCE TO YOU. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CALL ME AT YOUR CONVENIENCE IF YOU DESIRE FURTHER INFORMATION.
(MICHAEL SCOTT FERN)