O.C.G.A.

36-67A-2 (2019)

Disclosure of financial interests

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A local government official who knew or reasonably should have known he or she: (1) Has a property interest in any real property affected by a rezoning action which that official’s local government will have the duty to consider; (2) Has a financial interest in any business entity which has a property interest in any real property affected by a rezoning action which that official’s local government will have the duty to consider; or (3) Has a member of the family having any interest described in paragraph (1) or (2) of this Code section

shall immediately disclose the nature and extent of such interest, in writing, to the governing authority of the local government in which the local government official is a member. The local government official who has an interest as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of this Code section shall disqualify himself from voting on the rezoning action. The disqualified local government official shall not take any other action on behalf of himself or any other person to influence action on the application for rezoning. The disclosures provided for in this Code section shall be a public record and available for public inspection at any time during normal working hours.

History

Code 1981, § 36-67A-2, enacted by Ga. L. 1986, p. 1269, § 1; Ga. L. 1991, p. 1365, § 1.

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Bias or interest of administrative officer sitting in zoning proceeding as necessitating disqualification of officer or

affecting validity of zoning decision, 4 A.L.R.6th 263.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Statute of limitations. - Because the tolling exception to the statute of limitation applied to the failure to disclose a financial interest charge, and the prosecution for that charge was timely commenced after the crime was discovered,

the trial court did not err by denying the defendant’s plea in bar based on the expiration of the statute of limitation. Kenerly v. State, 325 Ga. App. 412, 750 S.E.2d 822 (2013).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2000–2013 · leading case: Little v. City of Lawrenceville, 528 S.E.2d 515 (Ga. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Little v. City of Lawrenceville, 528 S.E.2d 515 (Ga. 2000). · cites it 8× “Little urges that the trial court erred by failing to set aside the rezoning action even though it found that Burson had violated OCGA § 36-67A-2. Under that code section, a local government official who knows or reasonably should know of a conflict of interest in a rezoning…”

Kenerly v. State, 750 S.E.2d 822 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “Under OCGA § 36-67A-2, [a] local government official who knew or reasonably should have known he or she:.”

Kevin Russell Kenerly v. State (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “As such, the Second Indictment, which incidentally charged [him] with the same offenses as the first quashed indictment, against [him] is invalid as it was returned by this [trial court] at a time when it lacked jurisdiction.” “Because the issue before us is a question of law,…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.