Opinion 83
(This Opinion discusses a prior version of the Canons of Judicial Conduct; the most comparable current rule is 2-3.4 Appointments to Governmental Positions.)
Issue:
May an associate circuit judge serve as a director of an Industrial Development Corporation formed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 349, Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri? The only connection that the Industrial Development Corporation will have with city government is that the board of directors will be appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the board of aldermen. No compensation will be paid to the judge.
Discussion:
The case of Jardon v. Industrial Development Authority of Jasper County, 570 S.W. 2d 666, 673 (Mo.1978), held that Industrial Development Authorities created pursuant to the Industrial Development Corporation Act are separate and distinct entities from the state, cities, or counties in which they are located. The purpose of such corporations is to promote commercial and industrial development within the city or municipality involved. Additionally, the corporation may not be formed unless it is first approved by the governing body of the county or municipality in accordance with V.A.M.S. 349.025.
Supreme Court Rule 2 Canon 5(G) states:
In the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline, an Industrial Development Corporation while a separate entity from the governing body involved, is still to be considered “a governmental committee, commission, or other position” as outlined in Supreme Court Rule 2 Canon 5(G). Since the purpose of an Industrial Development Corporation is not for the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice, the associate circuit judge may not serve as a director of such a corporation
(Dated: May 26, 1982)
COMMISSION ON RETIREMENT, REMOVAL AND DISCIPLINE
OPINION 83
Issue:
May an associate circuit judge serve as a director of an Industrial Development Corporation formed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 349, Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri? The only connection that the Industrial Development Corporation will have with city government is that the board of directors will be appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the board of aldermen. No compensation will be paid to the judge.
Discussion:
The case of Jardon v. Industrial Development Authority of Jasper County, 570 S.W. 2d 666, 673 (Mo.1978), held that Industrial Development Authorities created pursuant to the Industrial Development Corporation Act are separate and distinct entities from the state, cities, or counties in which they are located. The purpose of such corporations is to promote commercial and industrial development within the city or municipality involved. Additionally, the corporation may not be formed unless it is first approved by the governing body of the county or municipality in accordance with V.A.M.S. 349.025.
Supreme Court Rule 2 Canon 5(G) states:
A judge should not accept appointment to a governmental committee, commission or other position that is concerned with issues of fact or policy on matters other than the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice.
In the opinion of the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline, an Industrial Development Corporation while a separate entity from the governing body involved, is still to be considered “a governmental committee, commission, or other position” as outlined in Supreme Court Rule 2 Canon 5(G). Since the purpose of an Industrial Development Corporation is not for the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice, the associate circuit judge may not serve as a director of such a corporation
(Dated: May 26, 1982)