The Attorney General of Texas 

January 8, 1980 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General 

Honorable Tom O’Connell 

Criminal District Attorney 

Collin County Courthouse 

McKinney, Texas 75069 

Dear Mr. O’Connell: 

You esk: 

Opinion No. PIW- 12 4 

Re: Legality of county contracts 

in which a county commissioner is 

indirectly interested, and related 

questions. 

May a county legally enter into a contract for the 

purchase of road materials from a company when said 

company is in turn paying a county commissioner 

royalties or other monies for some of these road 

materials? 

You explain that the county purchases its needs for crushed rock pursuant by 

a single bid submitted to the Commissioners Court of Collin County by a 

company that for many years has mined the material, crushed it, and stereo 

it at five specific quarries. When crushed rock is needed for road 

maintenance, the county commissioner responsible for the district 

maintained sends county trucks to one of the quarries for the rock needed. 

The company pays the quarry owner a royalty for each truckload of rock 

removed from his quarry. Your question arises because one of the quarries 

is owned by a county commissioner and his son. The circumstances of the 

matter, according to your office, were well known to all members of the 

commissioners court at the time the bid was accepted. 

In Attorney General Opinion MW-34 (1979), we observed: 

Article 2340, V.T.C.S., requires that, upon entering 

the duties of office, a county judge and each member 

of the commissioners court 

take a written oath that he will not be directly 

or indirectly interested in any contract with, or 

claim against, the county in which he 

resides. . . . 

P. 387 
nonorame 

It has long been firmly established in this state that a contract 

between a public official and the public body of which he is a 

member is contrary to public policy and therefore void, if the 

official has any personal pecuniary interest in the contract. Bexar 

County v. Wentworth, 378 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Civ. App. - San 

Antonio 1964, writ reFd n.r.e.); Starr County v. Guerra, 297 S.W.2d 

379 (Tex. Civ. App - San Antonio 1956, no writ>; Me ers v. 

Walker, 276 SW. 305 (Tex. Civ. App. - Eastland 1925, + no writ . 

Thisfice has said that the purpose of article 2340 is ‘to eliminate 

any conflicts of interest between the county and those who manage 

its fiscal affairs.’ Attorney General Opinion No. H-624 (1975). See 

Attorney General Opinions M-1140 (1972); WW-1406 (1962). EG 

compelling circumstances are not sufficient to render such a 

contract lawful. Attorney General Opinions H-734, H-695 

(1975). . . . Such a contract may not be subsequently ratified, 

Limestone County v. Knox, 234 S.W. 131 (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 

1921, no writ). . . . 

The situation you describe does not involve a contract directly between a public 

official and the public body of which he is a member, but it does invoive a contract and 

claims against the county in which a public official has an indirect pecuniary interest, at 

least, and perhaps a direct one. The arrangement is violative of article 2340, V.T.C.S., 

which is designed to eliminate such conflicts of public and private interests 

Attorney General Opinion H-354 (19741, cited by one of the briefs submitted to us, 

does not support a contrary conclusion. There, it was determined that a county might 

purchase gasoline from a comoration owned bv the brother of a countv commissioner 

“assumingit to be true that no county commissioner has an interest, dire& or indirect. in 

the corporation. . . .‘I s at 3. See also Attorney General Opinions H-1309 (1978); H-993 

‘(1977); H-329 (1974). Cf. Attorney General Opinion O-6044 (1944). 

- 

This office does not pass upon disputed matters of fact in its opinion process, but 

applies the law to the facts given us. Under the facts given here, it is our opinion that the 

contract is illegal and void. See Bexar County v. Wentworth, 378 S.W.2d 126 (Tex. Civ. 

APP. - San Antonio 1964, wxref’d n.r.e.); Penal Code § 39.Oh V.T.C.S. art. 2340; cf, 

Attorney General Opinion H-354 (1974). 

SUMMARY 

Where a county commissioner receives royalties on the sale of rock 

to a company which in turn sells the rock to the county, the 

contract for sale of the rock to the countv is void. 

-&?h$&& 

MARK WHITE 

Attorney General of Texas 

P. 388 
Honorable Tom O’Connell - Page Three (MW-124) 

JOHN W. FAINTER, JR. 

First Assistant Attorney General 

TED L. HARTLEY 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

Prepared by Bruce Youngblood 

Assistant Attorney General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

C. Robert Heath, Chairman 

Jim Allison 

David B. Brooks 

Walter Davis 

Bob Gam mage 

Susan Garrison 

Rick Gilpin 

Bruce Youngblood 

P. 389