Court Opinion

ID: 4137328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-18 02:23:37.201835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:08:36.322399
License: Public Domain

%%IE       ATTO           NEYGENERAI.
                                 ~FTExAS
                                AUSTIN      11. TEXAS
PRICEDANIEL
ArrnRNIlY OmxXR141
S.W.2d 698, 700 (Tex. Civ. App. 1940, error rif.j,       as
iollowst
           “It may be &ated, as a general
     rule deducible from the cases discussing
     the question,  that a position   is a pub-
     lic office  when it is created by law,
     with duties cast on the Incumbent which ”
     Involve an exercise   of some portion of   ”
     the sovereign power and in the performance
     of which the public is concerned, and
     which are continuing in their nature and
     not occasional  or intermittent;   while a
     public employment on the other hand, is
     a position which lacks one or more of
     the foregoing  elements.”
            When the numerous provisions     of Article
165a-4 are considered in the light of the foregoing
generally accepted rules for determining whether a
public position     is an office or one of employment,
we think the position     held by a supervisor   of a soil
conservation    district  is a public office   emolument,
and the holder of such an office      is, of course, a
public officer.
             It is also our opinion that the position
held by a supervisor     of a soil conservation   district
who has been employed by his board of district        super-
visors to perform certain duties for his district,
such as those mentioned in your letter,       for which he
Is compensated by the board from funds belonging to
the district,     is that of a public employee, a “posi-
tion of honor, trust or profit under this State,”
founded on contract between him and his board of su-
pervisors.
Hon. C. H. Cavness,   page 6   (V-1445)

           Consequently,   the prohibitive  provisions   of
Section 33 of Article    XVI of the Constitution    are ap-
plicable  here and impel us to answer your question in
the negative.
           This opinion Is limited to the specific    ques-
tion submitted.   The question of authority    of a board
of supervisors  of a soil conservation  district   to em-
ploy one of its members to perform services for the
district  and pay him therefor  out of the funds of the
district  is not before us9 hence we express no opinion
thereon.

            A member of a district    board of super-
     visors of a soil conservation       district    cre-
     ated under Article     165a-4, V.C.S.,     is a
     public officer.      When such a member is em-
     ployed by his board to render managerial or
     other services    for his district     and for
     which he receives     compensation from the funds
     of the district,     he kids   at the same time an
     office   of emfilument id also a position        of
     honor, or tx~~st; or profit under this State.
     Consequent,l.y, h.e cannot be paid by the State
     for any ?ff”icial    services which he may have
     rendered during the, time he was so employed.
     Tex. const* ht.      XVI, Sec.~ 33-
APPROVED:                             Pours 'vexy tPuly,

J. C. Davis, Jr.                        PRICE DANIEL
County Affairs Div'lsion              Attorney General
Mary K. I*!all.
Reviewing Assistant
Charles D. Mathews
First As,,:,-.Cant                             Assistant
BWB:wb