Moore v. Nebraska Acct. & Disclosure Comm.
310 Neb. 302
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Timothy Moore served as chair of the village of Madrid board (trustee) from 1998–2016 and received board compensation for meetings.
- In 2014–2016 Moore performed additional village work (utilities cover, budgeting, legal matters, miscellaneous chores) and charged an hourly rate preapproved by the board.
- Moore routinely submitted monthly payment requests for that extra work at regular board meetings; requests were not listed as agenda items, he did not disclose an interest on the record, and he did not abstain from voting; the board routinely approved payment.
- A resident complaint led the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission (NADC) to find implied contracts existed and that Moore violated § 49-14,103.01(5) by failing to follow disclosure/abstention rules; NADC assessed a $500 civil penalty.
- Moore appealed under the Administrative Procedure Act; the district court affirmed the NADC, finding an implied contract and that Moore (a trustee/officer) was subject to § 49-14,103.01; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moore had an "interest in any contract" with the village under §49-14,103.01 | Moore: No contract existed (no meeting of minds) | NADC: Parties’ conduct created implied contracts for hourly work | Yes — implied contracts found; Moore had an interest |
| Whether Moore violated §49-14,103.01(5) disclosure/abstention requirements | Moore: Requirements inapplicable if no contract | NADC: He failed to list agenda items, disclose interest, and abstain when approving payments | Violation proven — failed to place on agenda, declare interest, and abstain |
| Whether Moore acted as a village employee (so exempt) rather than an officer | Moore: Work was employee work, not subject to §49-14,103.01(5) | NADC/District Court: He acted as trustee/officer; trustees generally cannot hold employee duties absent limits | Supreme Court did not consider this argument on appeal (Moore did not assign error to district court’s rejection) |
Key Cases Cited
- Big Blue Express v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., 309 Neb. 838, 962 N.W.2d 528 (2021) (APA review standard: conformity to law, competent evidence, not arbitrary)
- Vokal v. Nebraska Acct. & Disclosure Comm., 276 Neb. 988, 759 N.W.2d 75 (2009) (statutory interpretation presents questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Linscott v. Shasteen, 288 Neb. 276, 847 N.W.2d 283 (2014) (principles for implied contracts and meeting of the minds)
- City of Scottsbluff v. Waste Connections of Neb., 282 Neb. 848, 809 N.W.2d 725 (2011) (explaining implied contract doctrine and objective manifestations of intent)
- Heese v. Wenke, 161 Neb. 311, 73 N.W.2d 223 (1955) (historical rule treating officer contracts with municipality as void)
- Peterson v. Jacobitz, 309 Neb. 486, 961 N.W.2d 258 (2021) (rules for construing statutes and legislative intent)