DISPOSE OF ANY OF ITS PROPERTY OR INTEREST THEREIN, ALL IN FURTHERANCE OF THE PURPOSES AND PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT; . . ."
(I)
YOUR FIRST QUESTION ASKS WHETHER A LOCAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT MAY DISTRIBUTE FUNDS TO A GROUP SUCH AS A LOCAL SCHOOL CHAPTER OF THE FUTURE FARMERS OF AMERICA. THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS BY A GOVERNMENTAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE TO INDIVIDUALS AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS GENERALLY ADDRESSED BY ARTICLE X, SECTION 17 OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION, WHICH STATES:
"THE LEGISLATURE SHALL NOT AUTHORIZE ANY COUNTY ON SUBDIVISION THEREOF, CITY, TOWN, OR INCORPORATED DISTRICT, TO BECOME A STOCKHOLDER IN ANY COMPANY, ASSOCIATION, OR CORPORATION, OR TO OBTAIN OR APPROPRIATE MONEY FOR, LEVY ANY TAX FOR, OR TO LOAN ITS CREDIT TO NY CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, OR INDIVIDUAL."
THIS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION AND THE ANALOGOUS PROVISION APPLICABLE TO THE STATE ITSELF, ARTICLE X, SECTION 17 HAVE BEEN HELD BY A NUMBER OF COURT DECISIONS AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINIONS TO PRECLUDE THE USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS TO ASSIST PRIVATE ENTITIES NO MATTER HOW WHOLESOME AND BENEFICIAL THE PURPOSES OR ACTIVITIES OF SUCH ENTITIES MAY BE AS TO THAT PORTION OF THE PUBLIC WITH WHICH THEY COME INTO CONTACT." A.G. OPIN. 82-071. SEE ALSO, A.G. OPIN. NO. 80-221; BURKHARDT V. CITY OF ENID, 771 P.2D 608, 611 (OKLA. 1989); VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS V. CHILDERS, 171 P.2D 618 (OKLA. 1946); HAWKS V. BLAND, 9 P.2D 720 (OKLA. 1932); YETTE V. CHILDERS, 227 P. 145 (OKLA. 1928). FOR EXAMPLE, IN CHILDERS, THE OKLAHOMA SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT A LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION TO A PRIVATE CORPORATION, THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL GIFT UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 15. IN OPINION 80-944, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE REACHED A SIMILAR CONCLUSION AA TO THE USE OF A CITY'S FUNDS FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO A CHURCH'S PROPERTY.
NEVERTHELESS, IN SPITE OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 15, THE STATE AND ITS AGENCIES AND SUBDIVISIONS MAY PROPERLY ENTER INTO CONTRACTS WITH INDIVIDUALS AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS. SUCH CONTRACTS ARE LAWFUL, IF THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, IF THEY SERVE A PUBLIC PURPOSE, AND IF THERE ARE PROPER CONTROLS AND SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THAT PURPOSE. A.G. OPIN. 82-071; OKLA. CONST. ARTICLE X, SECTION 14. WAY V. GRAND LAKE ASSOCIATION. INC., 635 P.2D 1010, 1015-1018 (OKLA. 1981).
THUS, IN WAY, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM'S PAYMENT OF CLAIMS TO A MULTI-COUNTY NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION WAS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THE CLAIM WAS PAID IN FURTHERANCE OF A PUBLIC PURPOSE (THE PROMOTION OF TOURISM) THAT WAS CLEARLY SET FORTH IN APPLICABLE STATUTES AND BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE HAD ESTABLISHED DETAILED CONDITIONS AND SAFEGUARDS GOVERNING THE PAYMENT OF SUCH CLAIMS.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOUR FIRST QUESTION CONCERNS A SITUATION IN WHICH A LOCAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT DISTRIBUTES FUNDS TO A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION LIKE THE FUTURE FARMERS OF AMERICA IN EXCHANGE FOR THE REDUCTION IN A PAYMENT UNDER A LEASE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE DISTRICT AND THE PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. WHAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED MAY BE IN THE NATURE OF A NEGOTIATED CONTRACTUAL