P. 

THE ATTORSEY GENERAL 

OF TEXAS 

December 29, 1986 

Honorable Lloyd Criss 

Chairman 

Committee on Labor and Employment 

Relations 

Texas House of Representatives 

P. 0. Box 2910 

Austin, Texas 78769 

Opinion No. JM-598 

Re: Whether a city official 

may engage in the writing of 

bail bonds 

Dear Representative Criss: 

You ask whether a city official who receives remuneration from 

the city or county may engage in the writing of bail bonds. 

Specifically, you inform us that 

[t]he current superintendent in charge of streets 

in Madisonville, Texas, is also engaged in the 

writing of bail bonds in Madison County. 

We assume that the superintendent is responsible for the construction 

and maintenance of city streets. Because you ask specifically about 

the current superintendent in charge of streets, we will limit our 

discussion to that particular office. We conclude that, as a matter 

of law, the superintendent in charge of streets is not prohibited by 

virtue of his employment with the city from engaging in the writing of 

bail bonds. We do not decide whether there is any conflict as a 

matter of fact, &, whether the superintendent in charge of streets 

may faithfully execute the duties of his office and, at the same time, 

engage in the writing of bail bonds. Such a determination involves 

the resolution of an issue of fact which we are not empowered to make. 

You inform us that Madisonville is a general law city; accordingly, it is governed by the general laws. specifically articles 961 

et seq., V.T.C.S. See Woolridge v. Folsom, 564 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. Civ. 

APP. - Dallas 1978, no writ). General law cities are creatures of 

statute and have no powers except those expressly or impliedly granted 

by the statute creating them. City of Uvalde v. Uvalde Electric & Ice 

Co., 250 S.W. 140 judgment adopted (Tex. Comm'n App. 1923); Dibrell v. 

City of Coleman, 172 S.W. 550 (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1915, writ 

ref'd). Article 977, V.T.C.S., authorizes the creation of 

p. 2674 
Honorable Lloyd Criss - Page 2 (JM-598) 

-, 

such other officers and agents as the city council 

may from time to time direct, who may either be 

appointed or elected as provided by ordinance. . . . 

We assume. that the position of "superintendent in charge of streets" 

is such an office. 

Article 2372p-3, V.T.C.S., provides for the licensing and 

regulation of bail bondsmen. The act creates a county bail bond board 

in each county having a population of more than 110,000 according to 

the last federal census; in counties of less than 110,000, the 

creation of the board lies within the discretion of a majority of the 

officers of the county who would constitute members of the board. 

V.T.C.S. art. 2372p-3, 583, 5. The population of Madison County, 

according to the last federal census, is less than 110,000. We have 

been informed that the officers of Madison County have not created 

such a board. Accordingly, the regulation and licensing pursuant to 

article 2372p-3 of bail bondsmen in Madison County falls without the 

ambit of the act. 

In counties not falling within article 2372p-3, V.T.C.S., the 

qualifications of bail bondsmen are determined by recourse to other 

statutory provisions. Article 17.06 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 

provides that 

[wlherever in this Chapter, any person is required 

or authorized to give or execute any bail bond, 

such bail bond may be given or executed by such 

principal and any corporation authorized by law to 

act as surety, subject to all the provisions of 

this Chapter regulating and governing the giving 

of bail bonds by personal surety insofar as the 

same is applicable. 

Article 2.01 of the Business Corporation Act, article 8.01 of the 

Insurance Code, and the above-quoted section of the Code of Criminal 

Procedure, taken together, permit two types of surety on bail bonds. 

It seems clear to us that the legislature, when it 

made the comprehensive revision of the bail bond 

statutes, permitted two types of surety upon bail 

bonds: individuals and insurance comoanies. No 

statute of general application vested in aF 

agency the right to determine the sufficiency of 

individual sureties and that determination was 

entrusted to the discretion of the approving 

official. As to the corporate surety, there was a 

statute of general application which vested the 

p. 2675 
Honorable Lloyd Criss - Page 3 (JM-598) 

determination of the sufficiency of the insurance 

companies as sureties upon the State Board of 

Insurance. 

International Fidelity Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey V. 

Sheriff of Dallas County, 476 S.W.2d 115, 119 (Tex. Civ. App. - 

Beaumont 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.). We can find no provision in either 

the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Business Corporation Act, or the 

Insurance Code which would preclude a city officer from engaging in 

the writing of bail bonds in the situation you describe. We turn next 

to the body of law governing public officers in order to determine 

whether there is in that body of law any legal impediment to an 

officer engaging in such activity. 

This office has in the past been called upon frequently to decide 

whether an officer of a political subdivision may contract with the 

political subdivision of which he is an officer. The general rule was 

that, absent a specific statutory prohibition, such contracts were 

invalid where there was a conflict of interest. See, e.g., Attorney 

General Opinion JM-99 (1983); ~~-236, MW-124 (1980); MW-34 (1979); 

H-624 (1975); H-354 (1974). In Attorney General Opinion JM-99 we 

discussed the common law prohibitions against conflicts of interest 

and concluded that 

as long as there is no conflict of interest, selfdealing, or potential for dereliction of duties, 

we believe that as a general proposition, a county 

official or employee may contract with the county 

through the commissioners court for services or 

materials which are furnished by that county 

employee in his private capacity and which are 

separate and wholly unrelated to his official 

county duties. 

This general conclusion has been modified by the enactment of article 

988b. V.T.C.S., which became effective January 1, 1984. 

In this instance, however, the city official is engaged in 

business, not with the city, but with private individuals. HIS 

private business is unrelated to his official duties. We have found 

no statute, nor have you directed us to one, which imposes restrictions comparable to article 988b on public officers engaged in private 

business with private individuals. But see Penal Code art. 39.01. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the superintendent in charge of city 

streets is not precluded as a matter of law from engaging in the 

writing of bail bonds. We do not address whether there is any 

conflict as a matter of fact, i.e., whether the superintendent in 

charge of city streets may faithfully execute the duties of his office 

and, at the same time, engage in the writing of bail bonds. 

p. 2676 
, 

Honorable Lloyd Criss - Page 4 (JM-598) 

SUMMARY 

The superintendent in charge of streets for the 

city of Madisonville is not precluded as a matter 

of law from engaging in the writing of bail bonds. 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

JACK HIGHTOWKR 

First Assistant Attorney General 

MARY KELLER 

Executive Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman. Opinion Committee 

Prepared by Jim Moellinger 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 2677