Can a person who is an officer and director of a corporation that holds a contract with a North Carolina public hospital be appointed to that hospital's Board of Trustees if the person owns less than 10% of the corporation's stock?
Plain-English summary
Durham County Hospital Corporation is a public hospital created under Chapter 131E. Its Board of Trustees was considering a nominee with a complicated background: he was a shareholder, officer, and director of a professional corporation (PC) that already had a contract with the Hospital generating over $10,000 a year in revenue for the PC. He owned less than 10% of the PC's shares. He did no work under the contract and received no compensation directly tied to it. He held the title of "officer and director" because every shareholder of this PC held those titles. He sat on the PC's executive committee but was willing to resign that position. He was not willing to resign his officer/director titles in the PC.
The Hospital's counsel asked the AG whether N.C.G.S. § 14-234 (the criminal conflict-of-interest statute for public officials) barred his appointment.
§ 14-234(a) makes it a misdemeanor for any appointed director of a trust in which a county is "in any manner interested" to make any contract for self-benefit under the appointing authority, or "be in any manner concerned or interested in making such contract, or in the profits thereof." Read broadly, that catches everyone with any interest in a county-contracting business.
§ 14-234(c1) is a safe harbor added in 1983: "The fact that a person owns ten percent (10%) or less of the stock of a corporation . . . or is an employee of said corporation . . . does not make the person 'in any manner interested' or 'concerned or interested in making such contract, or in the profits thereof,' . . . as such phrase is used in subsection (a) of this section."
The question turned on whether (c1) shelters not only small shareholders and employees but also officers and directors of the contracting corporation. The nominee owned only 7-9% of the PC, well under the 10% safe harbor. So if the safe harbor applies to him as a small shareholder, he is clear regardless of his other roles. If the safe harbor doesn't cover his officer/director status, his small stockholding doesn't save him.
The AG concluded the safe harbor does not extend to officers or directors of the contracting corporation. Three reasons:
-
Statutory language. Subsection (c1) carves out two categories: small shareholders (10% or less) and employees. It does not list officers or directors. The legislature could have added them; it did not. NC's plain-meaning approach respects that silence.
-
Legislative purpose recalled by the sponsor. Representative Harry Payne (who sponsored the 1983 bill that added (c1), and later became NC Labor Commissioner) recalled distinguishing employees from officers and directors. The distinction Payne recalled: employees don't make policy; policy is made by officers and directors. The safe harbor was meant for people too far down the chain of command to influence the contracting decision; officers and directors are too close to it.
-
The "evil sought to be remedied." § 14-234's purpose is to prevent self-dealing by public officials. A trustee on the Hospital's board who also sits as officer or director of a Hospital contractor has divided loyalties on Hospital contract decisions, regardless of how small a shareholder he is. The statute would not have been written to allow that.
So the AG's bottom-line answer was: appointing this nominee while he remains an officer and director of the PC would violate § 14-234 and expose the nominee to misdemeanor liability. To take the trustee seat, he would have to resign as officer and director of the contracting PC.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1997. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
§ 14-234 has been substantially amended since 1997, most notably by 2007 Session Laws c. 348, which rewrote much of the statute and added new categorical exceptions for spouse-employment situations, small-municipality contracts, and certain pension/retirement matters. The 10% shareholder safe harbor and the employee carve-out have been preserved with some modifications. Anyone advising a current public board nominee with a contractor relationship must read the current statute, not the 1997 text.
Common questions
Q: What is a "professional corporation" and why does it matter here?
A: A PC is a corporate form for licensed professionals (doctors, lawyers, accountants, architects). In NC, all shareholders of a PC are typically required to be licensed in the profession the PC practices. PCs often distribute ownership broadly among practicing professionals, so it's common for shareholders to hold small percentages and to all carry officer/director titles. The 1997 nominee's structure (under 10% shares, but officer/director titles like everyone else) is a typical PC pattern.
Q: Did the AG say that the executive committee membership was the problem?
A: Not really. The nominee was willing to resign from the executive committee, and the AG did not focus on that. The dispositive issue was his refusal to resign as officer and director. The titles, not the operational role, drove the analysis under § 14-234.
Q: Could the nominee have salvaged the appointment by recusing from votes on the PC's contract?
A: § 14-234 in its 1997 form did not provide a general recusal cure. The crime is "being in any manner concerned or interested" in the contract, not voting on it. A trustee could recuse from a specific vote but still be "in any manner concerned" by virtue of holding officer/director status at the contractor. The AG opinion does not address recusal because the underlying disqualification could not be cured that way.
Q: How seriously do NC courts treat § 14-234 violations?
A: Very seriously. The statute makes the violation a misdemeanor. Public board members and their counsel typically structure appointments to avoid any colorable § 14-234 problem. The risk is not only criminal liability for the official but invalidation of the underlying contract or board action.
Q: Why use AG legislative recall when courts say statutory interpretation cannot rely on legislator testimony?
A: NC courts generally distinguish between (a) using legislator testimony to override the plain meaning of a statute (not allowed) and (b) using legislator recollection to confirm a reading that the statute's words already support. The AG used Payne's recollection in the second way: not to override the text of (c1), but to confirm that the omission of officers and directors from the safe harbor was deliberate, not an oversight.
Background and statutory framework
§ 14-234 is a long-standing NC criminal conflict-of-interest statute applying to public officials at all levels: state agencies, county boards, municipal boards, hospital boards, school boards, and similar bodies. Subsection (a) defines the basic prohibition. Subsequent subsections add exceptions, definitions, and procedural rules. The 1983 amendment that added (c1) was designed to keep small shareholders and ordinary employees of contracting corporations from being criminalized for serving on public boards. The compromise was that policy-making roles (officer, director) remained inside the prohibition even at small shareholdings.
Public hospital corporations under Chapter 131E are common in NC: they let counties run hospitals through a public-corporate form that gives the board operational flexibility while keeping the institution accountable to county appointment authority.
Citations
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-234(a) (public official conflict-of-interest misdemeanor)
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-234(c1) (10% shareholder and employee safe harbor)
- Chapter 131E (public hospital authorities)
- Chapter 544 of the 1983 Session Laws (1983 bill adding § 14-234(c1))
Source
Original opinion text
March 26, 1997
Vedia Jones-Richardson, Esquire
Suite 1200 University Tower
3100 Tower Boulevard
Durham, North Carolina 27707
RE: Advisory Opinion; Durham County Hospital Corporation; Conflict of Interest; N.C.G.S. § 14-234; Proposed Appointment of an Officer and Director of a Contracting Corporation to the Board of Trustees of the Hospital
Dear Ms. Jones-Richardson:
The Durham County Hospital Corporation (hereinafter "Hospital") is a public hospital authorized to provide health care services pursuant to Chapter 131E of the General Statutes of North Carolina. The Hospital is considering the nomination of an individual to its Board of Trustees who has a business relationship with one of its contractors. As counsel to the Hospital, you request our opinion whether N.C.G.S. § 14-234 prohibits the appointment of this individual (hereinafter "nominee") to the Board of Trustees. For reasons which follow, it is our opinion that so long as the nominee remains an officer and director of the professional corporation, his appointment would be in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-234.
The nominee is a shareholder, officer and director of a professional corporation with which the Hospital has a contract. During the past year, that contract produced in excess of $10,000 in revenue to the professional corporation. However, the nominee holds less than ten percent of the stock of the professional corporation, performs no services under the contract, and receives no compensation from its proceeds. Although the nominee serves as an officer and director of the professional corporation, these are titles held by all shareholders of the professional corporation. The nominee currently serves on the executive committee of the professional corporation, but has indicated that he would consider resigning that position if nominated to the Hospital. The nominee will not resign his position as an officer and director of the professional corporation.
N.C.G.S. § 14-234 provides, in pertinent parts:
(a) If any person appointed . . . a . . . director to discharge any trust wherein . . . any county . . . may be in any manner interested shall . . . make any contract for his own benefit under such authority, or be in any manner concerned or interested in making such contract, or in the profits thereof . . . he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c1) The fact that a person owns ten percent (10%) or less of the stock of a corporation . . . or is an employee of said corporation . . . does not make the person "in any manner interested" or "concerned or interested in making such contract, or in the profits thereof," . . . as such phrase is used in subsection (a) of this section.
Since the nominee owns less than ten percent of the shares of the professional corporation, does Subsection (c1) apply? Put another way, is a director or officer of a corporation who owns ten percent or less of the stock of the corporation exempt from the prohibitions of Subsection (a). We think not.
Subsection (c1) was added in 1983. See, Chapter 544 of the 1983 Session Laws. A review of the legislative history of Subsection (c1) is not instructive, except to identify that Representative Harry Payne, now Commissioner of the North Carolina Department of Labor, was its chief sponsor. Although our courts have recognized time and time again that a statute must be construed to carry out the legislative intent and that legislative intent may not be established by the testimony of members of the legislature which adopted the statute, Styers v. Phillips, 277 N.C. 460 (1971), we find legislator recollections instructive, particularly if the sponsor has a specific recollection that is also supported by the words used in the statute. Mr. Payne reflected that when he sponsored the bill in 1983, he recalls distinguishing between an employee of a corporation and an officer or director of a corporation. The distinction Mr. Payne recalls is employees do not make policy; and, that policy is made by officers and directors of the corporation. Interestingly, Mr. Payne also recalls that when the 1983 bill was introduced, Subsection (c) of N.C.G.S. § 14-234 was already law and acknowledged that the legislature made a distinction between employee and director or board member.
We conclude, therefore, based upon the language of Subsection (c1), its legislative history and the evil sought to be remedied, that the legislature did not intend to exempt a policy maker — officer or director — of a corporation doing business with a public board or commission from the prohibitions of Subsection (a), regardless of whether that officer or director owned ten percent or less of the shares of stock in the corporation.
Andrew A. Vanore, Jr.
Chief Deputy Attorney General