Opinion ID: 1122588
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: state pre-emption

Text: Acevedo first argues that section 2.3 is pre-empted by state law. [2] State pre-emption of municipal enactments occurs when a particular exercise of authority has been prohibited to municipalities. City of Kodiak v. Jackson, 584 P.2d 1130, 1132 (Alaska 1978). The prohibition must be either by express terms or by implication such as where the statute and ordinance are so substantially irreconcilable that one cannot be given its substantive effect if the other is to be accorded the weight of law. Id. (quoting Jefferson v. State, 527 P.2d 37, 43 (Alaska 1974)). Acevedo does not argue pre-emption by implication. He contends that AS 29.13.100 expressly prohibits municipal enactments such as section 2.3. AS 29.13.100 provides: Limitation of home rule powers. Only the following provisions of this title apply to home rule municipalities as prohibitions on acting otherwise than as provided. They supersede existing and prohibit future home rule enactments which provide otherwise: ... . (33) AS 29.23.555 (conflict of interest); ... . AS 29.23.555 states in part: Conflict of interests. Each home rule and general law municipality shall adopt a conflict-of-interests ordinance which, other provisions of this chapter notwithstanding, includes provision that an officer or employee shall disqualify himself from participating in any official action in which he has a substantial financial interest. There is no express pre-emption based on these provisions in this case. The City has enacted a charter section prohibiting members of the City Council from voting on matters in which they have a pecuniary interest. [3] Thus the mandate of AS 29.23.555 has been obeyed. Section 2.3 goes beyond what is required by AS 29.23.555, but the statute does not prohibit the enactment of ordinances which go beyond its requirements. To the contrary, it states that a conflict-of-interest ordinance must be enacted which includes a provision governing pecuniary conflicts. The clear implication is that other conflict-of-interest provisions may also be enacted, so long as pecuniary conflicts are addressed in the manner provided by AS 29.23.555. To rule otherwise would render AS 29.23.540(c) meaningless. It provides that [n]o state employee or school district employee may be denied the right to serve as an elected municipal official because of his employment by the state or a school district unless specifically prohibited by charter or ordinance of a municipality, adopted at a special or general election.  (Emphasis added).