Judges: W.A. DREW EDMONDSON, Attorney General of Oklahoma
Filed Date: 10/31/1997
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
Dear Representative Ostrander,
¶ 0 This office has received your letter requesting an official Opinion addressing, in effect, the following question:
Do "shift exchange" or "duty exchange" arrangements entered intobetween a municipality and its firefighters and/or lawenforcement officers constitute a loan of credit in violation ofArticle
¶ 1 The term "shift exchange" or "duty exchange" is used primarily in the public safety sector of government. This practice permits firefighters and law enforcement officers to exchange duty shifts with one another so long as both individuals have like skills, rank and compensation. In shift exchange situations, the shift is worked, the municipality pays for the work performed in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement or contract between the municipality and the firefighters and/or law enforcement officers, and both individuals receive their normal salary as if each had worked their respective shifts. The shift exchange practice has been used for many years and has been included in collective bargaining agreements between various municipalities and their firefighting and/or law enforcement employees.
¶ 2 Your question asks whether this practice constitutes a loan of credit by a municipality in violation of Article
The Legislature shall not authorize any county or subdivision thereof, city, town, or incorporated district, to become a stockholder in any company, association, or corporation, or to obtain or appropriate money for, or levy any tax for, or to loan its credit to any corporation, association, or individual.
Okla. Const. art.
¶ 3 The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in interpreting this constitutional provision, has stated:
Section 17, Article X, of our Constitution is a limitation, and not a grant of power, and was adopted for the purpose of preventing the investment of public funds in private enterprises.
Lawrence v. Schellstede,
¶ 4 Similarly, in Burkhardt v. City of Enid,
These public benefits also constitute consideration to the city and refute any argument that the plan is a gift or extension of credit . . . in violation of article
10 , section17 , of the Oklahoma Constitution.
Burkhardt v. City of Enid,
¶ 5 The Court went on to state that:
Consideration may be measured by benefit to one party or by forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility assumed by the other party.
Id.
¶ 6 In the issue at hand, no "investment of public funds in private enterprises" occurs. Both individuals are public employees, have like skills, rank and compensation, and receive a salary for the work they perform, albeit by exchanged duty shifts. The only limitation to this shift exchange arrangement is that the shift must be worked before payment is made. In Attorney General Opinion 84-87, it was opined that, pursuant to Article
The question whether salaries or other contractual payments may be made in advance of performance of work . . . has been addressed in several prior Attorney General's Opinions, each of which has found such payments may not be made. See, e.g., A.G. Opin. Nos. 83-69, 81-323[.]
A.G. Opin. 84-87.
¶ 7 Therefore, since the work (shift) for which the city is paying is performed before payment is made by the municipality, there is no extension of credit by the municipality in violation of Article
¶ 8 It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the AttorneyGeneral that:
"Shift exchange" or "duty exchange," which is a practice enteredinto between a municipality and its firefighters and/or lawenforcement officers whereby duty shifts may be exchanged betweenindividuals of like skills, rank and compensation but eachreceives his or her usual salary as if the regular shifts hadbeen worked, does not constitute an extension of credit by amunicipality in violation of Article
W.A. DREW EDMONDSON ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA
STEVEN K. SNYDER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL