Conflict of Interest; Payment of Public Assistance to Persons in Rest Homes

Subject:

Requested By: W. W. Speight County Attorney for Pitt County

Questions: May payment of public assistance be made for the care of a person in a home for the aged, family care home, or other domiciliary facility which is owned or operated in whole or in part by an employee of a State Alcoholic Rehabilitation Center?

 

1.  
2. May payment of public assistance be made for the care of a person in a home for the aged, family care home, or other domiciliary facility which is owned or operated in whole or in part by a corporation of which an employee of a State Alcoholic Rehabilitation Center is an officer or a shareholder?

    

3. May payment of public assistance be made for the care of a person in a home for the aged, family care home, or other domiciliary facility which is rented from an employee of an area mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse authority?

    

Conclusion: No.

 

1.  
2. No.

    

3. Yes.

    

G.S. 108-65.2, as amended by 1979 Session Laws, Chapter 702, effective May 30, 1979, provides as follows:

"108-65.2. Limitations on payments. — No payment of public assistance under this Part shall be made for the care of any person in a home for the aged, family care home, or other domiciliary facility which is owned or operated in whole or in part by any of the following:

1. a member of the Social Services Commission, of any county board of social services, or of any board of county commissioners;

    

2. an official or employee of the Department of Human Resources or of any county department of social services;

    

3. a spouse of a person designated in subdivisions (1) and (2)."

    

The State Alcoholic Rehabilitation Centers are set up by the Department of Human Resources and are an integral part of that department. See G.S. 122-7.1. Since the clinical director is an employee of the Department of Human Resources, the proscriptions of G.S. 108-65.2 apply to any home of the type described therein which is owned by that employee. Similarly, these prohibitions would also seem to apply to situations wherein an employee of an Alcoholic Rehabilitation Center is an officer or a shareholder of a corporation which owns or operates, in whole or in part, one of these types of homes. That conclusion has been reached with regard to the interpretation of the language of G.S. 14-234 and no distinction can logically be made here. For prior opinions of this Office in comparable situations, see 44 N.C.A.G. 128 1974), 42 N.C.A.G., 180 (1973); N.C.A.G. 9 (1972); 40 N.C.A.G. 565 (1970); 40 N.C.A.C. 561 (1969).

On the other hand, an area mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse authority is a local political subdivision of the State. See G.S. 122-35.36(1)). As a result an employee of an area mental health, mental retardation and substance abuse authority is not an employee or an official of the State or of any county. See G.S. 122-35.45(b); 47 N.C.A.G. 8 (1977); 45 N.C.A.G. 70 (1975). Thus the provisions of G.S. 180.65.2 would be inapplicable to such an employee.

Rufus L. Edmisten Attorney General

William F. O’Connell Special Deputy Attorney General