Can a teacher employed by a JTED member district sit on the JTED's governing board, or is that a conflict?

Plain-English summary

Joint Technical Education Districts (JTEDs) in Arizona are partnerships between two or more school districts that jointly run Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs for students. The East Valley Institute of Technology (EVIT) is one of 14 such JTEDs in the state.

EVIT's attorney, Clyde Dangerfield, sent the AG a draft opinion concluding that a teacher employed by one of EVIT's member districts (and teaching CTE satellite courses on that district's campus) could lawfully serve on EVIT's JTED governing board. Under A.R.S. § 15-253(B), school-related opinions by school district attorneys must be reviewed by the AG within 60 days. The AG agreed with part of the analysis but revised it: a member-district CTE teacher likely cannot serve on the JTED governing board, even though the statute does not say so explicitly.

Two reasons drove that conclusion:

1. Statutory eligibility. A.R.S. § 15-393(A)(3) prohibits "an employee of a joint technical education district" from serving on the JTED governing board. The teacher in question was an employee of a member district, not the JTED itself, so the express statutory prohibition did not apply.

2. Common-law incompatibility of public offices. This is the analytical workhorse. Arizona's incompatibility doctrine, from Perkins v. Manning, 59 Ariz. 60 (1942), forbids holding two public offices when one is subordinate to the other or has the power to review, regulate, or oversee the other. A JTED governing board oversees the content and quality of CTE courses, the quality of teachers providing JTED instruction, the salaries of those teachers, and the financial relationship with member districts. A CTE teacher on a member-district satellite campus is, in substance, exactly the type of person a JTED board oversees. AG Op. I90-023 (1990) had reached a parallel conclusion for school district teachers serving on the same district's school board, and the AG read this as essentially the same situation.

3. Conflicts of interest under A.R.S. § 38-503. Even setting incompatibility aside, the teacher-board member would frequently have to recuse from votes on contracts and decisions involving the member district that employed him. A.R.S. § 38-503(A)-(B) requires recusal whenever the official has a "substantial interest" in a contract, sale, purchase, or decision. A "substantial interest" is any non-speculative pecuniary or proprietary interest other than a "remote" one (A.R.S. § 38-502). A JTED-to-member-district funding decision could plausibly affect the teacher's compensation, employment, or working conditions: that is the substantial interest. The remote-interest exception in § 38-502(10)(i) covers public-agency interests but does not apply when the agency in question "is the same governmental entity," which here it effectively is.

The opinion also flagged pending House Bill 2205 (2018), which proposed amending § 15-393(A)(3) to expressly prohibit "an educator who teaches or administers a [CTE] program or course at a satellite campus" from serving on the JTED's governing board. If that bill had passed, the question would have been moot.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2018. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. House Bill 2205 from the 2018 session (or successor legislation) may have since amended A.R.S. § 15-393(A)(3) to make the prohibition explicit. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical context: what the opinion meant in 2018

For JTED governing boards

The opinion gave JTED boards a clear answer: think hard before seating a member-district CTE teacher. Even with the formal statutory prohibition limited to JTED's own employees, the common-law incompatibility doctrine and the practical impossibility of avoiding conflicts on routine board votes made the appointment legally vulnerable.

For CTE satellite course teachers considering board service

A teacher who wanted to serve on the JTED governing board but also taught CTE classes on a member district's satellite campus needed to either give up the teaching position or get the legislative change in HB 2205 (or wait for it). Trying to do both was a recipe for forced recusals and possible challenges to their continued service.

For school district attorneys

The opinion is a useful reminder that school district attorneys cannot just write opinions on these questions and expect them to stand. A.R.S. § 15-253(B) routes them through the AG's review process, and the AG has authority to "concur, revise, or decline to review" within 60 days. Here the AG revised, materially changing the conclusion.

For ethics compliance staff at JTEDs

The opinion's three-track analysis (express statutory prohibition, then common-law incompatibility, then case-by-case conflict-of-interest analysis under § 38-503) is a useful template for evaluating dual-office or dual-employment questions outside the JTED context too. The same framework applies whenever an Arizona public employee is being considered for a public board that has oversight authority over the employee's job.

For the Legislature

The opinion implicitly supported the policy direction of HB 2205. Codifying the prohibition would resolve the ambiguity and avoid litigation over case-by-case incompatibility analyses. If the Legislature wanted to allow such service, it would have to override the common-law incompatibility doctrine explicitly.

Common questions

Q: What is a JTED?
A: A Joint Technical Education District. Two or more school districts can vote (via voter approval) to form a JTED to oversee Career and Technical Education (CTE) programs for students of the participating districts. A.R.S. § 15-392(A). Arizona had 14 JTEDs as of 2018.

Q: How does the JTED governing board work?
A: A JTED is governed by its own board, whose members are drawn from the constituent districts. Members may not be employees of the JTED itself or members of the constituent districts' own school boards. A.R.S. §§ 15-392(D), -393(A).

Q: What does "incompatibility of public offices" mean?
A: A common-law doctrine that bars a person from holding two public positions at once when (a) it would be physically impossible to perform both, or (b) one position has the power to oversee, review, or regulate the other. Perkins v. Manning, 59 Ariz. 60, 65 (1942). The classic example: the office of auditor and an office whose accounts the auditor must audit.

Q: Why is a CTE teacher serving on the JTED board incompatible?
A: Because the JTED board's statutory powers include managing the content and quality of CTE courses, evaluating teacher quality, setting teacher salaries, and reimbursing constituent districts for facilities used. A board member who teaches CTE on a constituent district's campus is the subject of decisions on each of those points. AG Op. I90-023 reached the same conclusion for teachers serving on their own district's school board.

Q: What is a "substantial interest" under A.R.S. § 38-503?
A: Any non-speculative pecuniary or proprietary interest, direct or indirect, that is not "remote." A.R.S. § 38-502(11). When a public officer has a substantial interest in a contract, sale, purchase, or decision, they must declare it in the official records and refrain from participating "in any manner" in the decision.

Q: What is a "remote interest"?
A: A category of interests that are excluded from the substantial-interest definition, including (per § 38-502(10)(i)) interests in another political subdivision or another public agency, except if it is the "same governmental entity." A teacher-board member's interest in his employer's contracts with the JTED probably is not "remote" because the relationship between member district and JTED is too close.

Q: Could the teacher-board member just recuse from the conflicting decisions?
A: In theory yes, but the opinion warned that the frequency of necessary recusals could itself demonstrate incompatibility. If the teacher had to recuse from a substantial portion of board business, that pattern showed the two positions were incompatible.

Q: What was House Bill 2205?
A: A 2018 legislative proposal to amend A.R.S. § 15-393(A)(3) to expressly prohibit "an educator who teaches or administers a [CTE] program or course at a satellite campus" from serving on the JTED's governing board. The opinion noted it as pending; whether it ultimately passed is outside the opinion's scope.

Q: How does AG review of school district attorney opinions work?
A: A.R.S. § 15-253(B) requires the AG to "concur, revise, or decline to review" school-matter opinions submitted by school district attorneys within 60 days. Per AG Op. I88-052 (Substitute), "county attorney" in this context includes attorneys who represent school districts with the consent of the county attorney. Here, the AG revised the underlying opinion.

Background and statutory framework

JTEDs and their governance

Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-392(A) authorizes two or more school districts to form a Joint Technical Education District (JTED) to oversee Career and Technical Education programs. The JTED is governed by its own board, with members drawn from constituent districts but barred from being JTED employees or constituent-district school board members. A.R.S. §§ 15-392(D), 15-393(A).

A JTED governing board's responsibilities under A.R.S. § 15-393(A) include managing:
- The content and quality of JTED courses
- The quality of teachers providing JTED instruction
- Teacher salaries
- Reimbursement of constituent districts for facilities used

A "joint technical education course" or "CTE satellite course" is a CTE course taught on a constituent district's campus as part of the JTED program. A.R.S. § 15-391(3), (5).

The incompatibility of public offices doctrine

Perkins v. Manning, 59 Ariz. 60, 65 (1942), articulates Arizona's incompatibility doctrine. Two tests:

1. Physical impossibility. Where the duties of two offices physically cannot be performed by one person (e.g., a county office requiring physical presence in the county, paired with a Congressional office in D.C.).
2. Subordination or oversight. Where one office is subordinate to the other or has the power to review or regulate the other's conduct (e.g., auditor and audited office).

AG Op. I90-023 (1990) applied Perkins to school-district teachers serving on their own district's school board, finding incompatibility because the board reviews teachers' performance and prescribes the rules teachers must follow. The AG read JTED-board / CTE-teacher as a parallel relationship.

A.R.S. § 38-503 conflict-of-interest framework

Even outside the incompatibility analysis, § 38-503 layers a per-decision conflict rule. A public officer with a "substantial interest" in a contract, sale, purchase, or decision must:

1. Disclose the interest in the official records of the public agency.
2. "Refrain from voting upon or otherwise participating in any manner" in the matter.

A "substantial interest" is any non-speculative pecuniary or proprietary interest, direct or indirect, other than a "remote interest." A.R.S. § 38-502(11). A "remote interest" includes interests in other political subdivisions or public agencies, except where the agency is the "same governmental entity." A.R.S. § 38-502(10)(i).

AG review of school district attorney opinions

A.R.S. § 15-253(B) requires the AG to "concur, revise, or decline to review" opinions on school matters submitted by school district attorneys within 60 days. Per AG Op. I88-052 (Substitute), this review applies both to elected county attorneys and to attorneys who represent school districts with the consent of the county attorney. Here, the AG revised the EVIT attorney's opinion, materially altering its conclusion.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- A.R.S. § 15-253(B) (AG review of school-related opinions)
- A.R.S. § 15-391(3), (5) (CTE definitions)
- A.R.S. § 15-392(A), (D) (JTED formation, board composition)
- A.R.S. § 15-393(A) (JTED governing board powers and eligibility)
- A.R.S. § 38-502(10), (11) (remote and substantial interest definitions)
- A.R.S. § 38-503 (conflict of interest disclosure and recusal)

Cases:
- Perkins v. Manning, 59 Ariz. 60 (1942) (incompatibility of public offices doctrine)

Prior AG opinions:
- AG Op. I90-023 (1990) (incompatibility of teacher and own-district school board member positions)
- AG Op. I88-052 (Substitute) (1988) (scope of "county attorney" in A.R.S. § 15-253(B))

Source

• Landing page: https://www.azag.gov/opinions/i18-001-r17-023
• Original PDF: https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/I18-001.pdf

Original opinion text

To:

Clyde R. Dangerfield

Cantelme & Brown, P.L.C.

Questions Presented

Whether a teacher, who is employed by one of the member districts of a Joint Technical Education District ("JTED") and teaches Career and Technical Education ("CTE") satellite courses at the member district's campus, is eligible to serve on the JTED's governing board.

Whether a JTED governing board member who is also employed as a CTE satellite course teacher by one of the JTED's member districts has a conflict of interest under Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") § 38-503.

Summary Answer

The governing statute does not expressly prohibit a teacher who is employed by a JTED member district and teaches CTE satellite courses at the member district's campus from serving on the JTED's governing board. The common law incompatibility of public offices doctrine, however, could prohibit the teacher from serving on the JTED governing board, especially if the conflicts of interest are sufficiently numerous to make service on the governing board incompatible with maintaining the teaching position.

A JTED governing board member who also teaches CTE satellite courses at a JTED member district's campus may have a conflict of interest if the governing board member has a substantial interest in a contract, sale, purchase, or decision of the governing board. See A.R.S. § 38-503(A)-(B). If the board member has such a conflict of interest, he must declare that conflict of interest in the official records of the JTED board and refrain from participating in any manner in the contract, sale, purchase, or decision. Id.

Background

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 15-253(B), an attorney for the East Valley Institute of Technology ("EVIT"), one of Arizona's 14 JTEDs, submitted an opinion that he had provided to EVIT's Superintendent for review. Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-253(B) requires the Attorney General to "concur, revise or decline to review" opinions relating to school matters within 60 days of receipt.[1] This Opinion revises the opinion submitted by EVIT's attorney.

Arizona law allows two or more school districts, with the approval of the voters of those districts, to establish a JTED to oversee CTE courses provided for students of the districts within the JTED. See A.R.S. § 15-392(A). Management and control of a JTED is vested in its governing board, whose members may not be employees of the JTED or members of the governing board of one of its constituent school districts. See A.R.S. §§ 15-392(D), -393(A).

To clarify, "CTE satellite course" as discussed in the context of the questions asked here, is considered to be a "Joint technical education course" that is part of a JTED district program as defined in A.R.S. § 15-391(3),(5). This Opinion does not address CTE teachers who are teaching CTE courses that are not part of the JTED district program as defined by A.R.S. § 15‑391(5).

Moreover, it is also worth noting that pending House Bill 2205, 53rd Leg. 2d Reg. Sess. (2018), if enacted, would amend A.R.S. § 15‑393(A)(3) to expressly prohibit "an educator who teaches or administers a [CTE] program or course at a satellite campus" from holding "membership on the governing board of that [JTED.]"

Analysis

I. A CTE Teacher Is Likely Prohibited from Serving on a JTED Governing Board Because the Teaching Position Is Likely Incompatible with Board Service.

Eligibility to serve on a JTED governing board is governed by A.R.S. § 15-393(A)(3), which prohibits "[a]n employee of a joint technical education district" from serving on the governing board of that district. A.R.S. § 15-393(A)(3).

Because the teacher described in the Opinion request is an employee of one of the JTED member districts, but not of the JTED itself, the statute does not explicitly prohibit the teacher from serving on the JTED governing board. The inquiry, however, does not end there. If employment by a member district is incompatible with serving on the governing board, the teacher may not hold both positions at the same time.

The common law doctrine of incompatibility of public offices precludes a person from holding two public positions simultaneously when the duties of the two positions are in conflict, such as when one office is subordinate to and subject to the other office's power to review and/or regulate its conduct. See Perkins v. Manning, 59 Ariz. 60, 65 (1942); Ariz. Att'y Gen. Op. I90‑023 (1990). In Perkins, the Arizona Supreme Court set forth two tests to determine incompatibility. The first test is whether it would be physically impossible to perform the duties of both offices. For example, when one office is a county office—the duties of which are to be performed in the county—and the second is a Congressional office—the duties of which are to be performed in Washington, D.C.—the offices may be incompatible. See Perkins, 59 Ariz. at 66-68 (collecting cases). Second, the duties of the two offices may be incompatible when "one office is subordinate to the other or has the power or duty of reviewing or regulating the conduct of the other," such as the office of auditor and an office whose accounts he must audit. Id. at 65.

It does not appear that it would be physically impossible to serve as both a teacher of CTE courses at a JTED satellite campus and on the JTED governing board. However, the role of a JTED governing board member may be incompatible with the CTE teacher position because of the JTED governing board's oversight role regarding CTE programs. See Perkins, 59 Ariz. at 65; Ariz. Att'y Gen. Op. I90-023, at 1 (concluding that the duties of a district teacher are incompatible with the duties of a district board member). Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-393(A) provides that JTED governing boards are responsible for the management and control of:

the content and quality of the courses offered by the JTED

the quality of teachers who provide instruction on behalf of the JTED

the salaries of teachers who provide instruction on behalf of the JTED

the reimbursement of other entities for the facilities used by the JTED

These oversight duties are similar to those deemed incompatible with a teaching position in a previous Attorney General Opinion concluding that a school district governing board's duties of "prescribing rules for the governance of schools in the district, which teachers are bound to follow, and reviewing the performance of and actions taken by teachers" were incompatible with a teaching position within the district. Ariz. Att'y Gen. Op. I90-023 at 1 (footnotes omitted). Here, a member district is responsible for the direct oversight of the teacher's employment. Nevertheless, the JTED governing board's oversight role, which includes teacher-quality and compensation decisions, is sufficiently related to the teacher's work that the two positions are likely similarly incompatible.

II. A JTED Governing Board Member Who Is Also Employed as a CTE Satellite Course Teacher May Face Repeated Conflicts of Interest.

Contributing to the incompatibility of the governing board member and teacher positions are the conflict of interest rules that apply to public officers and employees. In particular, a JTED board member who has a substantial interest in a contract, sale, purchase, or decision of a public agency "shall refrain from voting upon or otherwise participating in any manner as an officer or employee in such contract, sale[,] purchase[, or] decision." A.R.S. § 38-503(A)-(B). A "substantial interest" is "any non-speculative pecuniary or proprietary interest, either direct or indirect, other than a remote interest." A.R.S. § 38-502(11). As relevant to this Opinion, a "remote interest" of a public officer or employee in a contract or decision is one that would not "confer a direct economic benefit or detriment on the officer [or] employee . . . of any of the following: (i) Another political subdivision; (ii) A public agency of another political subdivision; [or] (iii) A public agency except if it is the same governmental entity." A.R.S. § 38‑502(10)(i).

Accordingly, a member of a JTED governing board who is also employed as a CTE satellite course teacher by one of the JTED's member districts would have a conflict of interest and would be prohibited from voting on or participating in the discussion of any contract between the JTED and the member district that would confer a direct economic benefit or detriment on the teacher-board member. A.R.S. § 38-503(A)-(B). For example, it is likely that a decision that provides funding from the JTED to the member district that employs the teacher-board member would create a conflict of interest, unless it is clear that that funding would not confer a direct benefit on the teacher-board member. Whether any particular board action confers such a benefit or detriment on the teacher-board member, however, is a factual question that must be determined on a case-by-case basis.

If the teacher-board member determines that a particular matter involves a conflict of interest, the board member must make the substantial interest known in the JTED board's official records and refrain from participating in any way in the decision. The frequency with which the teacher board-member must recuse himself from matters could also demonstrate that employment as a teacher of CTE satellite courses by one of the JTED's member districts is incompatible with service as a board member.

Conclusion

In summary, while not expressly prohibited by statute, employment by one of a JTED's member districts as a CTE satellite course teacher is likely incompatible with service as a member of the JTED's governing board. Moreover, incompatibility is particularly likely if the board member's employment gives rise to enough conflicts of interest that would require the board member frequently to refrain from participating in and voting on board decisions.

Dominic E. Draye

Solicitor General

[1] The term "county attorney" in A.R.S. § 15-253(B) includes elected county attorneys as well as attorneys who represent school districts with the consent of the county attorney. Ariz. Att'y Gen. Op. I88-052 (Substitute Opinion) (1988). The opinion revised herein falls in the latter category.