September 18, 1975

The Honorable John Lawhon District and County Attorney Denton County P. 0. Box 44 Denton, Texas 76201 Opinion No. H- 695 Re: Whether a county may pay the director of its public health district a salary plus fees for certain other services. Dear Mr. Lawhon: You have requested our opinion concerning the following questions: (1) May a county pay the director of its public health district a salary of $12, 000. 00 per year and also pay that director or other member ofhis medical firm $275. 00 per autopsy that he or amember of his medlcal firm performs? (2) May acounty pay that director of his medical firm additional fees for laboratory services performed by them? (3) May the health unit purchase drugs and other supplies from that director or his firm? You explain that t~hedirector and ot.her members ofhis firm are the only practicing patho:logists in your county. Article 4447a, V. T. C.S., provides statutory authorization for t,heformation of ahealth district. Section 6provides that the authority vested inthe county health officer may be transferred to the director of ahealth d,istrict. Section 5(b) provides that the director “shall be compensated in accordance with the terms ofthe agreement under which the dlst~rict is formed. ” The agreement inthis instance provides for the compensation of the director Taobe specified in the annual budget. I‘hus. the additional amount. ifany. the director of the public health district would receive for performing an autopsy would be determined inthe annual budget. Art~c.lc, 49. 0’3. Cocl~: of Crimin;lI Procedure, provides guidance as to the maximum fee p<:r ,g,utopsy which can be paid.

p. 301s,‘
. ,

Your second and third questions concern cont.racts between ahealth district and the director or his medlcal firm for laboratory services, drugs, and other supplies not used in connection with an autopsy. You explain that the director’s firm is the only firm performing the required laboratory services in your county. In Attorney General Opinion M-340 (1969) itwas concluded that:

. . . It is contrary to public policy for aphysician, amember of a Board of Trustees of acommunity center to receive compensation for patient. referral from the center.

. . . It is contrary t,opublic policy of this State for amember of aBoard of Trustees of acommunity center to be amember of aBoard of Trustees and a stockholder of corporations cont,racting with the community center. This determination was in reliance upon Meyers v. Walker, 276 S.W. 305, 307 (Tex. Civ.App. --Eastland 1925, no writ) inwhich it was held that: If a public official directly or indirectly has apecuniary interest in a contract, no matter how honest he may be, and al~though he may not be influenced by the interest, such a contract so made is violative of the spirit and letter of our law, and is against public policy. See Attorney General Opinions H-638 (1975), ‘WW-1241 (1962). V-640 (1948), v-381 (1947). Accordingly, in our opinion any contract. express or implied, between the director of ahealth district and amedical firm ofwhich he is a member is against pu’blic policy and should not be entered into. SUMMAR’Y Where aut.horized by the agreement forming the public health district, the director of adistrict may receive rompensat ion inaddit ion t:ohis regular salary for the performance of.a properly authorized autopsy.

p. 3016A contract between the director of ahealth district and amedical firm ofwhich he is a member is against public policy.

Attorney General of Texas

Opinion Committee jad:

p. 3017