Judges: JIM MATTOX, Attorney General of Texas
Filed Date: 3/18/1988
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
Honorable John F. Miller, Jr. Criminal District Attorney P. O. Box 3030 Texarkana, Texas 75504
Re: Qualifications of civil service commissioners (RQ-1340)
Dear Mr. Miller:
You ask several questions regarding the Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Civil Service Commission in Texarkana, Texas. You indicate that the current chairman of the commission served on the Texarkana, Texas, Housing Authority until May, 1986, and was appointed to the civil service commission approximately three months later. In addition, one of the other two civil service commissioners held the office of school district trustee at the time of his appointment to the commission in May, 1987.
Both of those appointments were made while fire fighters' and police officers' civil service commissions were governed by article 1269m, V.T.C.S. Section 3(b) of that statute set out the following qualifications for commissioners:
All such Commissioners shall be of good moral character, citizens of the United States, resident citizens of the particular city for which they are appointed, shall have resided in said city for a period of more than three (3) years, shall each be over the age of twenty-five (25) years, and shall not have held any public office within the preceding three (3) years. (Emphasis added.)
Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 910, § 1, at 3046, repealed by Acts 1987, 70th Led., ch. 149, § 49(1), at 2544. Current law maintains the same requirements, but in slightly different form. See Local Gov't Code §
You first ask whether the underscored requirement disqualifies the present chairman of the commission. A housing commissioner is regarded as a public officer. Attorney General Opinion MW-1096 (1972); see also Housing Authority of Harlingen v. State ex rel. Velasquez,
You next ask whether the same requirement also disqualifies the commissioner who served as an elected school board member at the time of his appointment. Like a housing commissioner, a school district trustee holds public office. Attorney General Opinion V-834 (1949); see also Educ. Code § 23.08 (requiring elections for trustees of independent school districts). Thus, like the former housing commissioner, the school board member was ineligible for appointment to the civil service commission.
Your third question relates to the validity of actions taken by a commission during the tenure of an appointee subsequently found ineligible. The identical question was presented in Vick v. City of Waco,
A de facto officer is one who, by his acts, has the appearance of holding the office he has assumed, but who in fact does not validly hold the office. Germany v. Pope,
Here, as in Vick v. City of Waco, the challenged officers were acting under color of authority. Thus, each was a de facto officer, and ``as such his acts are as binding as though he was an officer de jure.' Shriber v. Culberson,
Your fourth and fifth questions relate to the procedure for removal of the officers in question. As noted by the court in Vick v. City of Waco,
Acts of de facto officers are valid. An action in quo warranto is the exclusive remedy to challenge an officer's right to continue to hold office.
Very truly yours,
Jim Mattox Attorney General of Texas
Mary Keller First Assistant Attorney General
Lous McCreary Executive Assistant Attorney General
Judge Zollie Steakly Special Assistant Attorney General
Rick Gilpin Chairman Opinion Committee
Prepared by Karen C. Gladney Assistant Attorney General