THE BASIS OF ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST CHARGE IS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL STANDS ACCUSED OF HAVING AN INTEREST IN BOTH SIDES OF THE TRANSACTION. NO ASSERTION IS NECESSARILY MADE THAT HARM HAS RESULTED. RATHER, SINCE PEOPLE NORMALLY PREFER THEIR OWN INTERESTS TO THOSE OF THE PUBLIC, THE ACT IS CONSIDERED IMPROPER ON ITS FACE. THE OBJECTIVE OF MAINTAINING HIGH ETHICAL STANDARDS IN GOVERNMENT MAY BE ACHIEVED IN SEVERAL WAYS. THE GOVERNMENT MAY ADEQUATELY COMPENSATE ITS PERSONNEL AND THUS REDUCE THE NEED TO PURSUE PRIVATE ECONOMIC INTERESTS. IT CAN ELEVATE THE NORMS OF CIVIC VIRTUE THROUGH PROPAGANDA. OR, AS IN NEW YORK, IT COULD TRY TO GUARANTEE A DESIRED LEVEL OF ETHICAL CONDUCT THROUGH LEGISLATION. ARTICLE 18, THE MUNICIPAL OFFICER AND EMPLOYEE CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATUTE, PROHIBITS AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE FROM HAVING ANY INTERESTS, DIRECT OR INDIRECT, IN ANY CONTRACT WITH MUNICIPAL EMPLOYERS. EMPLOYEES CANNOT NEGOTIATE, PREPARE, OR AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT WITH THEIR MUNICIPAL EMPLOYER NOR CAN THEY APPOINT ANYONE TO EXERCISE THOSE DUTIES. THE SCOPE OF THE ARTICLE IS ENCOMPASSING. WHEN THERE IS A DELIBERATE VIOLATION, THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION IS A NULLITY AND THE OFFICER INVOLVED MAY BE FOUND GUILTY OF A MISDEMEANOR. COMPARED WITH THE SCOPE OF THE DOCTRINE UNDER THE COMMON LAW PREDECESSOR STATUTES, ARTICLE 18 HAS NARROWED THE PROSCRIBED TYPES OF CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS AND APPEARS TO BE A SIGNIFICANT ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE UNIFORM REGULATION. FOOTNOTES ARE INCLUDED IN THE ARTICLE. (LWM)