WSPC00738 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TAX DATA CORP. ~. HUTT _.a6 P.24 353 (CoIo.App. '09" creates IiDe-drawing' problems. It stated from becoming employed as teachers while that ,'" , not preventing' spouses of boiud members (r)egvdJess oi the eriticism of nepotism from teaehing. Therefore, we reverse that and of tandem employment of relatives, a portioo of the . court of appeals' judgment diffieDIt deeision is always presented as holding that the c:onfIiet of interest policy to where' the line is to be dra_t promulgated by the Montrose County spouses, or parents and children, or School Board violated Lambert's equal pro- brothers and sisters, ete. Some 'tunili.s teetlon rights, and l't!IIl8IId the ease to that are eXtreJpely close unto two or three court for reinstatement of the diatriet ,~..- of kindred. Some are to the court's lIUIIlJIW')' judgment for the defeD- ~tnry. '" ' daDts 00 Lambert's equal prot.eelion eIaima. Coy7N, 595 P.2d at 974_ The Montrose County. School Board rea8C)Dably could have decided that its confliet of interest policy should encompass board members but oot spouses of board members baaed on the reasons set forth in Coyne and Haski7l& Lambert also argues that the board's TAX DATA CORPORATION, a Colorado policy is arbitrary and not rea&oDably relat- corporation, Appellant, ed. to its legitimate interest in preventing conflieta of interest because under the poJi. cy, DO confliet of interest is recognized when a person is first a teacher and theo is later elected to the school board. Lambert maintainS. that she and such a person are identii:ally situated and that therefore the board's policy is underinclusive. The evi- deoce contained in the record" however, does not support the contention that this is the board's policy, Lambert bases her ar- gument on a conversation she allegedly had with another member of the board and which she recounted in her deposition. At most, the conversation shows that in the opinion of one board member a distinction exists between Lambert's situation and the situation of a person who is already em- ployed as a teacher when elected to the school board.' No evidence exists that the board's policy makes this sort of distinc- tion, and therefore this issue is not prope"" Iy before us. ., " III. In summary, we conclude that the board reasonably could limit its confliet of inte,... est policy so as to prevent board members 6. !.ambon also referred in her deposition to a later telephone conversation "with another mem- ber of the board who said he could not support her employment as a leacher. It is unclear Colo. 353 w o IU1_IlttJlM T ~. SteYen HUTT, Individually and In his capacity as Treasurer for the City and County of Den~er, Appellee. , No. 90CA1I97. Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II. Aug. 1. 1991. Rehearing Denied Sept 26. 1991. Certiorari Denied Feb. 24, 1992. Company in business of providing cus- tomers with tax infonnation on real prope,... ty located in city brought Open Records Aet action against treasury department, alleging denial of access to public infonna- tion. The Distriet Court of the City and County of Denver, John N. McMullen. J., held for department, and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Smith. J., held that regulations prohibiting public from person- ally using treasury department's computer tenninals to access municipal tax infonna- tion, instead requiring public to request infonnation from staff, did not deny access &om tbe record whether this conversation also included a discussion of whe\hcr a person em. ployed as a teacher could continue in that em- ployment after later beina elected to the board. ~J![g@~O~~ I ru; 3 11992 Ii I . ..... .-..,.:...-..... ~ 00 (I') ~