THAT THERE ARE SOME CRIMINAL STATUTES WHICH ALSO GOVERN CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PUBLIC OFFICERS AND PRIVATE ENTITIES. THE TWO MOST NOTABLE ARE 21 O.S. 344 (1981), WHICH PROVIDE THAT ANY PUBLIC OFFICER WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO MAKE ANY CONTRACT IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY, AND WHO VOLUNTARILY BECOMES INTERESTED INDIVIDUALLY IN SUCH CONTRACT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IS GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR. IN ADDITION, 21 O.S. 355 (1981), PROVIDES THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY MEMBER OF ANY BOARD OF EDUCATION TO FURNISH FOR CONSIDERATION ANY MATERIAL OR SUPPLIES FOR THE USE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. IT IS MY PERSONAL OPINION THAT NEITHER OF THESE STATUTES APPLIES TO THE CURRENT SITUATION, SO LONG AS THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE UTILITY IS SIMPLY FOR THE TYPES OF SERVICES DESCRIBED IN 70 O.S. 5-124 AND 62 O.S. 371. I NOTE THESE STATUTES SIMPLY OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, AND WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY BE CONSULTED TO ASCERTAIN HIS OPINION, SINCE HE IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING THESE STATUTES.
(SUSAN BRIMER LOVING)