The Honorable Neal E; Birmingham’

Criminal M8trict 

### Attorney Box 555 Linden, Tera8 Opinion No. **H-** 334
Re: Whether County 

### Commir8ionerr **Court** m8y contr8ct caith the brother of 8 commirrioner to purch88e peroline.
D44r Mr. Birminghm:

**Your** requart for **our** opinion **concern4** the propriety of8 county purch88a 

### ofLual from 

### 8**corporation** an4d 

### by **the** brothar Ot**on4 of**  tha county 

### commhrionarr, in which the commirrioner own8 no interart. You have 8dvired u8 8nd’your county 

### commirrionerr t&t, in your opinion, it ir not illagal for thr commiorionerr to purcl-4884 fubl 

### fr.om 8

### corpor8- tion ownad by the brothar of one of tham. You **hw4** cited l numbsr of Artorney Caner81 Gpinion8 8nd p8rticd8rly Opinion O-2856 PPIO), in which. it 188 88id. 

### with reference to Article 3’13, V. T. 

### P.C. :

The 

### 8bova **rtetute w88** **eoartrued** in Rigby v. SWe, by tha Court ofAppalr, 10S.W. 761, in which it **~88** daclar8d that trudfe8tly. the **kgi818tUr4 in**  **c~cting** tha **rt4tute,** intended thareby to protect counti48, citie8 8nd town8 from offici81 

### pecul8tion. Whathrr 8 commi88ioner ir ‘pacuni8rily interarted **84** ths **t4rm i8**  urcd in the 

### 8t8tUte. i8 gen4r8lly 8 

### quartion of f8Ct. A8 

### dirclored in your r4qu48tl the **bU8in488** i8 **owned** 8nd opar8tad **by the**  commirrioner’8 brother 8nd it doer 

### not**rppe8r** that the commirrioner i4 pecuni8rily intera8tad in nuking ruch purch88a8 44 8gant a[ tha county.

. . .

p. 1667**The Honorable**  Neal E. 

### Birmingh8m p4ga **2 (H-354)** 

it i8 theraforc tha opinion of thi8 deprrtment th8t it i8 not illegrl for 8 county commirrioner to.purch884 emergency 

### 8Uppli48for **cOn8trUCtiOn**and r4p8ir Of county ro8d8 88 8n rgant of the county udder 8uthority 

### of the 

### court from 8 brother who 

### own88nd opar8te8 8 bU8in4!8, 

### where the commirrioncr ir not pecuni8rily intererted in the contr8ct. Article 373 of the 

### Pen41 Code ~88 repe8led with the eluctment of the **1974**

### Panel Code (Act8 1973, 63rd Leg., ch. 399, p. **883,** Sac. 3). Nothing 

### h88 **been** clucted to rebl8cc it.

Howavar, w4 

### 8ra of th4 opinion tb8t 

### the.rt+tament of **Opinion O-2856,**  quoted 8bovc, 18 rtill 8 correct rtat8mant 

### of 18~. 

### Article 373 ofthe Panel 

### Cod4**W88 (8nd,i8)**  nOktha**Ody 8t8tUt4** **8p48kiing to** Conflict8 of int4re8t. **Art. 2340,**  **V.** T. C. S., r48d8: Bafora antaring upon tha 

### dutier of thsir offica, the county **judge** 8nd 48ch commir8ionar rh811take the 

### officiti oath, 8nd rhell 8180 t8ke 8 writtan 48th **that** ha will not bs directly 

### or indirectly int4?88ted in 8ny contr8ct.‘with, or &iti bk8in8t. the county in 

### which.he **r48id48.** axcapt 

### ruch w8rr8ntr 88 m8y i88ue to him 88 facr of office. E8Cb commi88ion4r rh811 **aracuto 8**  bond to ba 8pprovcd **by the**  **county** judge in tha 8um of three thou88ird doll8r8, p8y8ble **to** the **county tra8rurcr.**  conditionad for the f8ithfui perform8nce of

### the dutiar of bir office, th8t 

### he will my ovar t0 bi8 

### County811money8 ill4g8lly paid to him. 

### outofcounty fundr, 88 volunt8ry p4ymant8 or otherwira, 8nd thethawill notvote or give hi8 **con** 

### 8ant to p8y out county fund8 arcapt for 18wful 

### purpo444. (Emph414 4dded) Conflict4 ofjnt4r48t or potenti colaflictr, 

### am r4gti8ted **by numeroum**  **othar** con8titution81 **rnd** 

## l **t8tutory** 

### provirion8. Sea, for axemple, Art. 3,

p. 1668Tbe Honorable Neal E. Birmingh8m p8ga 3 (H-354)

Sac. 18. Conrtitution of Taur; Article 988, 6252-9b, 

### 8nd 6447, V. T. C. S.

Furthermore, the rule againat 8 public 4erv8nt hrving 8 benefici81 intereat in 8 contr8ct with hi8 &overnmentd entity eXirt8 88 COmmOn 

### 18W. 10McOuillin, Municip81 Corporrtionr, Set 29.97, p. 467, **quoted** in Delt8 Electric Conrt. v. City of San Antoaio, 437 S.W. 2d 602 (Tax. Civ. App., S8n Antonio, 1969, err. ref ’d., n.**r.** e.); 2Dillon on Municip81 Corporation4, 5th ad. p. 1140quoted in Attorney Gener81 Opinion WW-!362 (1962); **Meycrr** v. Walker, 276 S. W. 305 

### (Tax. Civ. App. i Eastland. 1925, no writ hirt.). And 

### 444 Cryrtrl City v. Del ,Monta Corporation, 463 F. td 976 (5th Cir. 1972).

Unlike the nepoti8m rt8tuteo (Art8. 59968. at req. , V. T. C.S.), the diaqualific8tion do48 no,textend beyond 

### the rt4te amployec himself. Normally, 

### whether or **not** 

### he ha8 8n intarsrt would be 

### 8quertion of f8ct. Howaver, thbe

### mare r418tiOn8hip of **two brotharr**  ir 

### not, in 8nd of it84lf. 

### l officiant toertablirh the prohibited int8rert.

Therefora, arruming it to **bc true**  th8t **no** county commirrioner h88 

### an intcre8t. direct or indirect, 

### in ths 

### corporation which **18**owncd by tha **brother** 

### ofonc ofthem rnd which ii tha proporad 

### rdlar of the fuel, **WC** 

### find no **b88ir** in **rtrtute** 

### or **8t** common **18~** to 

### find **the contr8ct**  

### intilid.

We 

### refer you to 

### tbc 18~8 raquiring bidding for tha pureh8re of rupplie4 **by** 

### 4 county. 

### Articlar 1659, 236& 8nd 6716-1, V. T. 

### C.S. And **884**Attorney Caner81 Opinion M-403 (1969).
SUMMARY Aoouming 

### complienca with **811 18W4** da8ling with the bidding 

### for the purchera ofruppliar by8 county, 8 contr8ct to buy 

### fu81for **8** county m8da 

### with 8 corpor8tion inwhich 8 comrdrrionar’r **brother** 

### own@tha majority of**th4** 8tock, 18not void 8dely



### p. 1669

### The Honor8ble **Ne8l E.**  **Birmingham page**  **4 (H-354)** 



### b4C8U84Ofthaf8milw ?41l8tiOlNhipwh4nth8 Commi88iOIL4r h8 110. illt4?88t inth4fruit8 Of the **contmct,** 8ithar 

### direct or **indirect.**

**DAVID M.**  **KENDALL, Cimirman**  

### opinion **comlaitt44**

p. 

### 1670