Timothy Moore v. Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission

Moore v. Nebraska Acct. & Disclosure Comm., 310 Neb. 302 (2021) · Supreme Court of Nebraska · October 22, 2021 · No. No. S-20-753

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a district court judgment upholding the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission’s determination that Timothy Moore violated the Nebraska Political Accountability and Disclosure Act. The court held that Moore’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances established implied contracts with the Village of Madrid for additional work, triggering statutory disclosure and abstention requirements. Because Moore failed to list the contracts as agenda items, disclose his interest, and abstain from voting, the $500 civil penalty was affirmed.

Court
Supreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the Court
Stacy, J.; Heavican, C.J.; Miller-Lerman, J.; Cassel, J.; Funke, J.; Papik, J.; Freudenberg, J.
Jurisdiction
Nebraska
Decision date
October 22, 2021
Docket number
No. S-20-753
Procedural posture
Appeal from a district court judgment affirming the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission's administrative decision imposing a $500 civil penalty for violations of the Nebraska Political Accountability and Disclosure Act.
Standard of review
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the appellate court reviews the district court's judgment for errors appearing on the record, asking whether the decision conforms to law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Questions of law, including statutory interpretation, are reviewed independently; factual findings supported by competent evidence are not substituted with the appellate court's own findings.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Timothy Moore v. Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

judicial review of agency actionadministrative procedure actagency adjudicationstatutory interpretationcontracts

Practice areas

administrative lawgovernment ethicspublic contractsstatutory interpretationappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the parties' conduct and surrounding circumstances established implied contracts between Moore and the Madrid Village Board for additional work in exchange for compensation at an hourly rate.
  2. Whether Moore's interest in those contracts triggered the disclosure and abstention requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 49-14,103.01(5).
  3. Whether the district court's affirmance of the NADC decision conformed to law, was supported by competent evidence, and was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.

Holdings

  1. The parties' conduct and surrounding circumstances established implied contracts under which Moore performed additional work for the village in exchange for compensation at a set hourly rate.
  2. Because Moore was an officer of the Village Board and had an interest in contracts with the Village Board, he was subject to the statutory disclosure and abstention requirements.
  3. The district court's judgment affirming the NADC decision conformed to the law, was supported by competent evidence, and was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.

Key quotations

We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the parties’ conduct and the surrounding circumstances demonstrate a mutual intent sufficient to show there was an implied contract to have Moore perform additional work for the village in exchange for compensation at a set hourly rate. (316)
He entered into contracts with the Village Board to perform additional work for the village in exchange for compensation at a set hourly rate. (317)

Factual background

Timothy Moore served as chair of the Madrid Village Board from 1998 through 2016. In 2014, 2015, and 2016, he performed additional work for the village beyond his ordinary board duties and regularly submitted hourly payment requests that the Village Board approved and paid. Moore generally did not place the requests on the meeting agendas, declare his interest on the record, or abstain from voting on or approving them. The NADC determined that the parties' conduct established implied contracts and that Moore violated the disclosure and abstention requirements of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 49-14,103.01(5).

Procedural history

After an evidentiary hearing, the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission found that Moore, while chair of the Madrid Village Board, had an interest in implied contracts with the Village Board and violated the statutory disclosure and abstention requirements when seeking payment for additional work. The NADC imposed a $500 civil penalty. The Buffalo County District Court affirmed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…