agreement
stween  the contractor and the trustee as to the employment
in question. On the other hand, this office stated in dicta
in Attorney General Opinion M-1236 at 4, that "[wlhere the pecuniary
interest of a public officer in a transaction is remote, as
where . . . he is but a mere employee, rather than an
officer or director . . . his interest is not one of such
a degree that will render invalid the transaction in which
his interest is involved."

     However, in Edward E. Gillen Co.
183 N.W. 679, 68lm      Kp. 1921), a RI
sewerage commission was employed as the superintendent of
a company which had contracted with the city. The
Wisconsin Supreme Court held that, although the individual
had no stock in the company and wasnot one of its officers,
he had such an interest in the business and welfare of his
company as would naturally tend to affect his judgment. If
his company prospered, "his service and salary might be
continued, and . . . he might be promoted."
     A California court has likewise held that a city council-
man employed as a foreman of a company contracting with his
city was sufficiently interested in the contract to render
it void, if his interest was such "as would tend in any
degree to influence him in making the contract . . . since
upon the success of [the] business financially primarily
depends the continued tenure of his position and the
comoensation which he receives for oerformina the service
required of him." Stockton Plumb&       6