Can a member of a local school board moonlight as a paid high school sports referee or umpire at games played by schools under that board's control without violating the self-dealing criminal statute?

Plain-English summary

Attorney Kenneth Soo asked the AG whether NCGS 14-234, the criminal statute that bars a public officer from contracting with his own public body, prohibited a school board member from serving as a paid referee or umpire at games hosted by schools the board operates. The board member would be paid per game, on game day, by check signed by the school principal and treasurer.

Chief Deputy AG Andrew Vanore, for AG Easley, said no.

The reasoning is short. NCGS 14-234 punishes a public officer who benefits financially from a contract or agreement between himself and the public body on which he sits. Here, the school board has no contract with the official. The contract chain runs from the school to a NCHSAA-assigned booking agent, then from the booking agent to the individual official. The school pays the booking agent a flat $40-$50 fee per sport for the season. The booking agent assigns officials. The official is paid game-by-game from the local school account on game day. The board itself never engages, vets, or negotiates with the official.

Because the school board is not the contracting party, the criminal statute does not reach the relationship. The opinion is narrow: it answers the legal-conflict question only and leaves untouched the question of whether the board member's officiating presents an appearance problem that the board should address through its own ethics or conduct rules.

Vanore added a closing reminder: 14-234 is a criminal statute, and only the district attorney can decide whether to prosecute. Although no DA has prosecuted someone who relied in good faith on an AG opinion, anyone in doubt should consult the local DA. This is the standard hedge the AG attaches to criminal-statute opinions, reflecting that AG advisory opinions do not bind district attorneys.

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. NCGS 14-234 has been amended multiple times since 1997, including significant restructuring of the public-officer self-dealing offense. NCHSAA's officiating assignment system and the booking-agent payment structure have also evolved. Anyone with a current question about a school board member's outside employment must check both the current statute and the current NCHSAA practices.

Background and statutory framework

NCGS 14-234 is the North Carolina self-dealing criminal statute for public officers. In its 1997 form, it made it a misdemeanor for a public officer to benefit financially from a contract or agreement between himself and the public body on which he sits. The statute reaches not just direct contracting (officer signs as a private party) but also indirect contracting where the officer or his close family has a beneficial interest in the contractor.

The statute's purpose is the prevention of public-trust self-dealing: a board member should not vote on a contract that puts public money in his own pocket. The classic violation is a school board member whose private construction company gets the contract to build a new school. A close family member's company can also trigger the statute under the secondary clauses.

For 14-234 to apply, the public body must be a contracting party. If the body has no contractual relationship with the entity that pays the officer, the self-dealing offense is not triggered. This 1997 opinion turns entirely on that point. The contractual structure runs school -> NCHSAA-affiliated booking agent -> official. The board's role is purely policy-setting (it operates the schools). It does not select, vet, contract with, or pay the official.

The AG opinion deliberately notes that it is narrow. It does not address whether the board member should be officiating at all, whether the board's ethics policies prohibit the arrangement, whether the booking agent should know about the connection, or whether the public-school athletic community might raise an appearance objection. Those are non-criminal-law questions the AG does not answer.

The closing-paragraph deference to district attorneys is a recurring feature of NC AG opinions on criminal statutes. Because the AG cannot bind district attorneys (each elected DA has independent prosecutorial discretion), the AG opinion is at most a defense for the requesting party against later prosecution, and even then only if the DA chooses to honor the AG opinion. In practice, AG opinions are respected and good-faith reliance has not been prosecuted, but the formal disclaimer is required.

Common questions

What if the board member were paid by the school principal directly with no booking agent in between?

That would be a closer question. The principal works for the board and acts on behalf of the school district when issuing checks. A direct school-to-officer payment chain might be reachable under 14-234, depending on whether the principal's authority to sign the check counts as "the board contracting" for purposes of the statute. The 1997 opinion was able to avoid that question because the intervening booking agent broke the chain. A direct arrangement would need its own analysis.

Does the board member have to disclose the officiating work?

Most school boards have ethics rules requiring disclosure of outside employment, particularly employment connected to district operations. The AG opinion does not address ethics rules. A board member taking officiating work in his own district should probably disclose it on whatever annual statement of economic interest the board uses, and recuse himself from any board votes that affect officials' compensation or assignment rules.

Could the board member officiate at games involving schools in his own district's playoffs against out-of-district schools?

The opinion's reasoning applies to any game where the school is paying the booking agent under the standard NCHSAA structure. The destination school (away team) does not factor into the payment chain. So yes, under the 1997 framework, the board member could officiate any game where the home school's NCHSAA-assigned booking agent picked him.

Was this opinion ever reversed or modified?

Not by the AG, to our knowledge. The opinion has been part of the NC AG opinion archive since 1997. NCGS 14-234 has been amended significantly since then, including a major overhaul in 2009 (S.L. 2009-403) that broadened the self-dealing offense and added new categories. Anyone relying on this 1997 opinion today must read it against the current 14-234, not the 1997 version.

What if the board member's officiating fees came from a booster club rather than the school?

That would change the analysis again. If the booster club is a private nonprofit (not a board-controlled entity), then no public funds are at issue and 14-234 has no purchase. If the booster club is functionally a school subsidiary with district oversight, the analysis would depend on the funding flow.

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/member-of-a-board-of-education-serving-as-a-sports-official/

Citations

• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-234
• 1996-97 North Carolina High School Athletic Association (NCHSAA) Rules

Original opinion text

April 21, 1997

Mr. Kenneth A. Soo
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1151
Raleigh, NC 27601-1151

RE: Advisory Opinion; Conflict of Interest; N.C.G.S. § 14-234; Member of a Board of Education Serving as a Sports Official for High School Athletic Contests at Schools Operated by the Board

Dear Mr. Soo:

You request our opinion whether N.C.G.S. § 14-234 prohibits a member of a Board of Education from serving as a paid sports official for a school operated by the board. For reasons which follow, based on the facts set forth in your letter, it is our opinion that neither N.C.G.S. § 14-234 nor any other law of which we are aware prohibits the board member from serving as a paid sports official for a school operated by the board. Our opinion is limited to whether there are any legal conflicts and does not address the appearance of conflict issue. The appearance issue is left to the individual board member and the other members of the board to determine.

The facts are as stated in your April 17 letter:

Sports officials are assigned to high school athletic competitions by independent booking agents who make assignments to particular competitions "based on the qualifications and merit of the officials." 1996-97 North Carolina High School Athletic Association (NCHSAA) Rules, page 174. High schools are assigned booking agents for each of their interscholastic sports by the NCHSAA. The board of education does not participate in the assignment or selection of booking agents.

High schools pay booking agents a fee of approximately $40 to $50 per sport before the season begins. The booking agent then assigns officials for each of the school's home games. Officials are paid by check from the local school account when they arrive on game day. The check normally is signed by the principal and local school treasurer. Payment to the official includes a set fee (e.g., $45 per game for football) and travel expenses.

The Board of Education does not enter into any express contract or agreement with booking agents or officials.

N.C.G.S. § 14-234, simplistically put, is a criminal statute which makes it a misdemeanor for a public official to financially benefit from a contract or agreement between himself and the public board on which he sits. Since the Board of Education has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the assignment or selection of the booking agents who in turn employ and assign the sports officials to the various schools, N.C.G.S. § 14-234 does not apply.

We point out, however, because N.C.G.S. § 14-234 is a criminal statute, only the appropriate district attorney may determine whether to prosecute and who to prosecute for violation of any criminal statutes. Although we are unaware that any district attorney has ever prosecuted an individual who has relied in good faith on the opinion of this office, you may wish to contact the appropriate district attorney about this question.

Very truly yours,

Andrew A. Vanore, Jr.
Chief Deputy Attorney General