IRNEU GENE
7lrExAs
PRICE DANIEL
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Hamh 29, 199.
fin, will R, Wilson, JP,, pegs 2 QV-796)
discussed at length in the case of Commonwealthof Penu-
sslvania v..Dunkle, 355 Ps, 493, 50 A,/2d) 496, 169 A.
L, R 1277, and cases cited therein, The question in
the L&nkle case w&s whether the Court had jurisdiction
to determine whether 8 person claiming the office of
Chairman of a County Committee of a political party had
been legally elected to that offlee under the rules of.
the party, It was held in that case'that since a Coun-
ty Chal~man is not a public oiffee~, the Court did not
have jurisdictionfn qpnowaz~anto proceedfngs to try tl-
tle to the politloal office. In arriving at the conclu-
sion that the Chairman of a County Committee of a polit-
ical party was not a public offices, the Court stated:
Henneck v. Pennock, 305 Pa 288,
157 A 6;3; 614. In that case it was said
that they 'have no municipal duties to per-
form, receive no compensationfrom the muni-
cipality, and the commfttee in which they may
have memberstip is not a e~edape Of the gov-
ePnment, but solely pertsfns to sn essentlal-
lg politlcal partg.P To this we might add
thst, so far as the county chairman of a po-
1ftloaP party is eonoerned,he does not take
the offPcis1 oath prescribed for all county
off'icem by A~ticls 7a Seatim 1, of the Con-
stitution, PS, The only logleal htepplreta-
tfon of the reasoning of the Supreme Court is
thstn8 CWW~Y ~~IPW is not 8 pbii0 orff-
cer.
In the case of Wall v 6urrie, 147 Tex, -o
213 S, W.(2d) 816 (Or3tobeme Texas Supreme
Court followed the holdfng in the Pennsylvaniacase and
held that a polltioal party's afffcers, such as members
of executivftaommittoes,ape not '"publicOP government-
al officers even when providiedfor by statutory law.
We quote the followings
"Respondentcontends also that the Ohsir-
man of a Republican am&g sxeautfve commlttee
is a publfo off~oislo end as such qis entitled
to judfoial process to protest him in the ti-
tle to anI possession of Ms offfoe.' This
contention fs mot sustc&nedby the authorities.
It is vell establishedin this state, as well
as in a maQopit;g of the other statea, that of-
ficers of a poIi~tl:&l
p~&g, suah as members
eon. Will R. Wilson, Jr., page 3 (V-796)
Of a paPty eXeCUtiv8 COtitte8, ~6 net pub-
lic 01"govePnmenta1officers, eve+ when ppo-
vlded for by statutory law, O D o
Ib anawe~ to your first question, therefopr,
It 18 our opinion that the Commissionsra'Court of Dal-
las County does not have any duty to furnish offloe
Space to the Dallas County Democratla Exeoutive Commit-
too.
In Tamant County v. Rattlkln Title Co,, 199
S. W.(2d) 269, it was held that the CommlsaionerstCourt
of Tarrant County did not have authority to lease OP
rent offloe space in the County Clerk's offloe to an lb -
atract cozitpany.We quote the iollowingr
"Appellantrelies principallyupon the
cam of Dodson v. MarShall, Tex. Clv. App.,
118 S. W. 26 621p mlt dlsmls8ed, for author-
ltj to aharge the appellee rent for Space in
the court house. Thie case In substance
holds In popt that the Commlsaion6~s'Court
had discpetlonarrf power to permit a cold
drink stand to be operatad in an ua-used al-
cove In the rotunda of the court hoarr for 8
stipulatedpental, whem the opemtlon of tlw
Stand did not interferewith the propor ~8.
of the court b.ouSe,and would rffepd oemvel~-
lences to these traasrctlngbusiniws th@mlr.
The appellcmt?sargument in the aaSe at bar
i.sthat If the Colrissi~no~sqCourt is au-
thorized to exact a chmgb rprm tha OpePrtor
bf a cold dplnk stand within the rotund8 et
the court house, that eald Coup% also has au-
thwlty ta make a ahargo for effice space
Used by abstpaotops whop. the abatraeter ha6
a closk,typewrltez=B amd otllce equipment,pro-
cludlng the UIIOof suoh space by othePSo or
the general publlo, and whepe sald aouz'tfur-
nishes elsctricltr,watelopheat, janlt;rtind
elevater eewlco to said abstractor.
such a right exiets beoause It Is a spaclal
se~vlce not fumlrhed by the County to the
general public in connectlo&with the right
of the genepal public to inspect the re;gde
and obtain &opieS thereof if desired.
dlf'ferencewe find between the Godson case
.
Hon. Will R. Wilson, page & (V-796)
and the one under dlscplsslonIs that the cold
drink stand was erected in the coUpt house
for that specific purpose and was not located
In that pmt of the court house dsslgnated
for the use of county offfees, To allow the
CommlSslonemq CoUpt to leaee OF rent office
space to private entePpPleewhloh was orlg-
lnallg erected fop the use of public office,
would be placing the CommlsslonePsQCoUpt and
private enteppplse in the pelatlolpof land-
lord end tenant, and In a sense'wouldbe ap-
plying public property fop pplvata use, which
Is against the laws of out State,
In Attorney Genemlas Opinion No, O-7011 It
was held:
"Followingthe ~easonlng In the f'opego-
ing opinion by Honorable~B,F, Loone and the
case of Dodson v. Marshall, 118 Sew,r26) 621,
writ dismissed, we held in Opfgloa No, o-178
that the Commlsslone~sp COUP% was without au-
thority to PS~% OP lease offices In the court-
house*
"In view of the foregoing It Is oup opln-
Ion that the county-dfs%ria%clerk aaaslotle-
gally opemte ths abstzaot p&m% in her office
OP at any o%he~ plaae in %.hecourthouse.
"We how of no au%ho~l%ty fog the Commis-
slonemD COUP% to expend iooun%gfurndsfop of-
flee equipment and supplias to be used HOP
purposei o%ltaep
%hm Ocoamtg pmposes.""
We qaa%e the fo11owfng t~om 34 Tex. Jupo 3%
"Thereforefn the absence of S0m8 p~ohi-
bltlon In %he o~ganlc lawO%he Legislaturemar
designate and set apa~$ public buildings OP
roomsnthePelnfop such purposes as ft pleases.
0 0 D
In the exerelse or %he above mentioned legle-
lative powep, the Legdalatum has paovlded Qn Article
2370, V. Co So, the fellowl~~
.. -
pnge 5 (V-796)
Ran. Will R, Wi‘l.son,
.
"Section 1, The Commiasiono~s’ CoUpt of
any county may, when nece~sz~y, provide bulld-
OP apartments at the county seat,
$!% than the court house, fop holding the
roomb
sessfons of the county cou&s, distplot oouFt6
end for carrying on suoh other pub110 bwiDo88
as may be authorizedby the Commlasion~sq
Therefore, It Is OLITopinion that It ia wlth-
in the sound discretion of the Commlsslone~s~Court
whether It will lease OF rent any part of at17 publle
building, except offices In the court houao, to persons
other tharpublic of'ficerao In the exepcise of thls~
discretion,however, It cannot Pent kn~ portion OS suoh
buildlnge to pplvate entePpz46.when such rpaae Is not-
essy r0P public uze,
A County does not have any duty to fur-
nish office space to a political paPtyns
county executive committee, and cannot rent
OF lease offlee space In the coPrcthouse to
such committee. The County doe5 have author-
ity to rent office spaoe ln other publlo
buildings to the co~~&ttee when such space
1s not neoessery fop public use0 &to 2370,
Vb c, se
YQUPS VePy tZulJO
ATTMRRIZYG- OF TEXAS
JRtbh