Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

The Honorable Neal E; Birmingham’ Opinion No. H- 334
Criminal M8trict Attorney
Box 555 Re: Whether County Commir-
Linden, Tera8 8ionerr Court m8y contr8ct
caith the brother of 8 commir-
rioner to purch88e peroline.
D44r Mr. Birminghm:
Your requart for our opinion concern4 the propriety of 8 county
purch88a of Lual from 8 corporation an4d by the brothar Ot on4 of tha
county commhrionarr, in which the commirrioner own8 no interart.
You have 8dvired u8 8nd’your county commirrionerr t&t, in your opinion,
it ir not illagal for thr commiorionerr to purcl-4884 fubl fr.om 8 corpor8-
tion ownad by the brothar of one of tham. You hw4 cited l numbsr of
A rtorney Caner81 Gpinion8 8nd p8rticd8rly Opinion O-2856 PPIO), in
which. it 188 88id. with reference to Article 3’13, V. T. P. C. :
The 8bova rtetute w88 eoartrued in Rigby v. SWe,
by tha Court of Appalr, 10 S.W. 761, in which it
~88 daclar8d that trudfe8tly. the kgi818tUr4 in
c~cting tha rt4tute, intended thareby to protect
counti48, citie8 8nd town8 from offici81 pecul8tion.
Whathrr 8 commi88ioner ir ‘pacuni8rily interarted
84 ths t4rm i8 urcd in the 8t8tUte. i8 gen4r8lly 8
quartion of f8Ct. A8 dirclored in your r4qu48tl the
bU8in488 i8 owned 8nd opar8tad by the commirrioner’8
brother 8nd it doer not rppe8r that the commirrioner
i4 pecuni8rily intera8tad in nuking ruch purch88a8 44
8gant a[ tha county.
. . .
p. 1667
The Honorable Neal E. Birmingh8m p4ga 2 (H-354)
it i8 theraforc tha opinion of thi8 deprrtment th8t it
i8 not illegrl for 8 county commirrioner to. purch884
emergency 8Uppli48 for cOn8trUCtiOn and r4p8ir Of
county ro8d8 88 8n rgant of the county udder 8uthority
of the court from 8 brother who own8 8nd opar8te8 8
bU8in4!8, where the commirrioncr ir not pecuni8rily
intererted in the contr8ct.
Article 373 of the Pen41 Code ~88 repe8led with the eluctment of
the 1974 Panel Code (Act8 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 399, p. 883, Sac. 3).
Nothing h88 been clucted to rebl8cc it.
Howavar, w4 8ra of th4 opinion tb8t the .rt+tament of Opinion O-2856,
quoted 8bovc, 18 rtill 8 correct rtat8mant of 18~. Article 373 of the Panel
Cod4 W88 (8nd,i8) nOktha Ody 8t8tUt4 8p48kiing to Conflict8 of int4re8t. Art.
2340, V. T. C. S., r48d8:
Bafora antaring upon tha dutier of thsir offica,
the county judge 8nd 48ch commir8ionar rh811 take
the officiti oath, 8nd rhell 8180 t8ke 8 writtan 48th
that ha will not bs directly or indirectly int4?88ted
in 8ny contr8ct.‘with, or &iti bk8in8t. the county
in which.he r48id48. axcapt ruch w8rr8ntr 88 m8y
i88ue to him 88 facr of office. E8Cb commi88ion4r
rh811 aracuto 8 bond to ba 8pprovcd by the county
judge in tha 8um of three thou88ird doll8r8, p8y8ble
to the county tra8rurcr. conditionad for the f8ithfui
perform8nce of the dutiar of bir office, th8t he will
my ovar t0 bi8 County 811 money8 ill4g8lly paid to
him. out of county fundr, 88 volunt8ry p4ymant8 or
otherwira, 8nd thet ha will not vote or give hi8 con-
8ant to p8y out county fund8 arcapt for 18wful pur-
po444. (Emph414 4dded)
Conflict4 of jnt4r48t or potenti colaflictr, am r4gti8ted by numeroum
othar con8titution81 rnd lt8tutory provirion8. Sea, for axemple, Art. 3,
p. 1668
Tbe Honorable Neal E. Birmingh8m p8ga 3 (H-354)
Sac. 18. Conrtitution of Taur; Article 988, 6252-9b, 8nd 6447, V. T. C. S.
Furthermore, the rule againat 8 public 4erv8nt hrving 8 benefici81
intereat in 8 contr8ct with hi8 &overnmentd entity eXirt8 88 COmmOn 18W.
10 McOuillin, Municip81 Corporrtionr, Set 29.97, p. 467, quoted in
Delt8 Electric Conrt. v. City of San Antoaio, 437 S.W.2d 602 (Tax.
Civ. App., S8n Antonio, 1969, err. ref’d., n. r. e. ); 2 Dillon on Municip81
Corporation4, 5th ad. p. 1140 quoted in Attorney Gener81 Opinion
WW-!362 (1962); Meycrr v. Walker, 276 S.W. 305 (Tax. Civ. App. i
Eastland. 1925, no writ hirt.). And 444 Cryrtrl City v. Del ,Monta
Corporation, 463 F. td 976 (5th Cir. 1972).
Unlike the nepoti8m rt8tuteo (Art8. 59968. at req. , V. T. C. S. ),
the diaqualific8tion do48 no,t extend beyond the rt4te amployec himself.
Normally, whether or not he ha8 8n intarsrt would be 8 quertion of f8ct.
Howaver, thbe mare r418tiOn8hip of two brotharr ir not, in 8nd of it84lf.
lofficiant to ertablirh the prohibited int8rert.
Therefora, arruming it to bc true th8t no county commirrioner h88
an intcre8t. direct or indirect, in ths corporation which 18 owncd by tha
brother of onc of them rnd which ii tha proporad rdlar of the fuel, WC
find no b88ir in rtrtute or 8t common 18~ to find the contr8ct intilid.
We refer you to tbc 18~8 raquiring bidding for tha pureh8re of
rupplie4 by 4 county. Articlar 1659, 236& 8nd 6716-1, V. T. C.S. And
884 Attorney Caner81 Opinion M-403 (1969).
SUMMARY
Aoouming complienca with 811 18W4da8ling with
the bidding for the purchera of ruppliar by 8 county,
8 contr8ct to buy fu81 for 8 county m8da with 8
corpor8tion in which 8 comrdrrionar’r brother
own@ tha majority of th4 8tock, 18 not void 8dely
p. 1669
The Honor8ble Ne8l E. Birmingham page 4 (H-354)
b4C8U84 Of tha f8milw ?41l8tiOlNhip wh4n th8
Commi88iOIL4r h8 110.illt4?88t in th4 fruit8 Of
the contmct, 8ithar direct or indirect.
DAVID M. KENDALL, Cimirman
opinion comlaitt44
p. 1670