At Monday's meeting of the Greene County Commission, some members of the commission who are also county employees read a statement declaring that they had a conflict of interest when it came to voting on the county budget [because it could affect them financially].

Other commission members who are county employees did not make such a statement, apparently because of confusion, and a delay that occurred when a motion was made to amend the resolution that set the property tax levy -- after the levy had already been approved.

For only the second time ever, the County Commission was using at the Monday session a new electronic voting system in which commissioners cast their votes on remote control units on their desks. The votes are then displayed all at the same time on a projection screen in the meeting room.

Several persons involved said in interviews that lack of familiarity with the new system may have created some confusion about the timing for reading the conflict-of-interest statements.

Another factor, they said, was the prolonged discussion among the commissioners about the motion to amend the property tax levy resolution. Dealing with that motion included a recess in the meeting in order for County Mayor Alan Broyles and County Attorney Roger Woolsey to check Roberts Rules of Order and other sources about how best to proceed.

Copies of the applicable state law on the conflict-of-interest issue were provided to all commissioners at the start of the meeting by Wanda Riddle, administrative assistant to County Mayor Alan Broyles.

Before the vote on the appropriations budget, Commissioner Bill Brown, who is the county's Emergency Management Agency director, read the statement. That prompted Commissioners Robbie Morgan and Rennie Hopson, both of whom are Greene County sheriff's deputies, to also read the statement.

However, considerable discussion began at that point, and it was some time before the vote was actually held.

County Clerk David Thompson speculated on Wednesday that unfamiliarity with the new electronic voting system on everyone's part, and the delay and long discussion may have caused others to forget.

Commissioner Clark Justis, who is the transportation supervisor for the county school system, said in a telephone interview on Wednesday that he intended to read the statement and pushed the button on his remote control voting device to show that he wished to speak, but got cut off in the confusion and discussion that preceded the vote.

Justis noted that, at any rate, he voted against the appropriations budget.

Commissioner Jan Kiker, a counselor at North Greene High School, said in a separate telephone interview that she "actually forgot" to read the statement.

"I'm used to doing a roll call vote," she said. Traditional roll call votes, in which each commissioner is called on by name in alphabetical order, no longer happen because of the electronic voting system.

"Usually (county attorney) Roger Woolsey reminds us" to read the statement, Kiker said, but that didn't happen Monday either.

Several other commissioners are former county employees or retirees, but are no longer required to read the statement.

Asked if the fact that some of the conflict-of-interest statements that should have been read were not read could cause overall County Commission votes to be invalid, County Attorney Woolsey said the votes were valid, and cited code section 12-4-101 (c) of state law.

This section reads:

"(c) (1) Any member of a local governing body of a county or a municipality who is also an employee of such county or municipality and whose employment predates the member's initial election or appointment to the governing body of the county or municipality may vote on matters in which the member has a conflict of interest if the member informs the governing body immediately prior to the vote as follows:

"'Because I am an employee of (name of governmental unit), I have a conflict of interest in the proposal about to be voted. However, I declare that my argument and my vote answer only to my conscience and to my obligation to my constituents and the citizens this body represents.'

"The vote of any such member having a conflict of interest who does not so inform the governing body of such conflict shall be void if challenged in a timely manner. As used in this subdivision (c)(1), 'timely manner' means during the same meeting at which the vote was cast and prior to the transaction of any further business by the body."