September 11, 1974.

The Honorable William R. Pemberton County Attorney P.0. Box 610 Beeville, Texas 78102 Opinion No. H- 397 Re: May a county become a dues paying member ofa chamber of commerce which is a corporation. Dear Mr. Pemberton:

Your request for an opinion explains that the Beeville and Bee County Chamber of Commerce is a corporation, and that its Board of Directors has asked Bee County, through the Commissioners Court, to become a dues-paying member. You also advise that the purposes and functions ofthe organization include promoting industrial development in the county, the development ofdowntown Beeville, and the promotion ofthe county-owned stadium. We understand that it also supports other measures beneficial to its commercial members.

Specifically, you have asked:

May Bee County, through the Commissioners Court, become amember ofthe Beeville and Bee County Chamber of Commerce and pay dues, out of the General Fund, in the amount of $1,500.00 per year? In ahelpful. brief you have directed our attention to several Texas Constitutional prbrisions bearing on the matter --among them, Article 11$3ofthe Constitution which reads in pertinent part:

No county, city or other municipal corporation shall hereafter become asubscriber to the capital ofany private cor,poration or association, or make any
p. 1856i -’ __._~

. ., I

The Honorable William R. Pemberton page 2 (H-397) ”



### . appropriation 

### or donation to the same, or in anywise loan its credit. ,.. In our opinion this provision of our Constitution prohibits Bee County from becoming adues paying member of the Beeville and Bee County Chamber of Commerce, and Article 3 552ofthe Constitution prohibits legislative authorization of such apractice. Attorney General Opinion O-6168 (1945).

The situation you describe does not, in our opinion, come within the holding of Barrington v. Cokinos, 338S.W. 2d 133 (Tex. 1960). Nor is it insulated from the abuses which those Constitutional provisions were designed toprevent, as was the case in Brazes River Authority v. Carr, 405 S. W. 2d689 (Tex. 1966). It is an attempt tosecure for the community and its citizens by subscription toaprivate corporation general benefits resulting from encouragement ofprivate industry and business. While this is a laudable purpose it is one towhich Bee County is prohibited bylaw from participation.

Although counties may not, in our opinion, become dues paying members of private corporations operating chambers ofcommerce in order to promote and advertise the area, the Legislature has enacted provisions enabling certain counties to raise and spend funds for advertising and promotion under certain conditions which include an authorizing election and the establishment ofa Board ofDevelopment. Articles 23528, 2352c, 2352d, V.T. C.S. And see Bland v. Taylor, 37S.W. 2d 291(Tex. Civ. App., Austin, 1931)aff ’d 67S.W. 2d1033 (Tex. 1934). Authority to engage in such activities under such conditions, however, does not carry with it other authority tojoin or make donations to private organizations in order toachieve asimilar end. Attorney General Opinions M-936(1971), O-2629 (1940). SUMMARY A county may not become adues paying member of achamber ofcommerce which is a corporation. ery truly yours,

p. 185 Attorney General of Texas

# r- -

The Honorable William R. Pemberton page 3 (H-397)

APPROVFD : ‘
. ’

I LARRY F.\jY& 

# LL
DAVID M. KENDALL. Chairman on Committee ,.

,

p. 1858