Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN BOJL J. 3. Altied County Auditor m91or county sle City National mlldlng Hahita falls, mxcs war Sir: Your requert for 0 oarefully oonaldered by thl your request as followa: the alaim after a8 above number- he individual cormis- ng out warrants, eta. ally bound to do but does do for the public and the pub114 of- urt i8 of the opinion that this also is not a legal liability of the county, and there- fore has asked me to submit the oounty olerkc8 bill to you and ask that you give an opinion thereon." We hare a340 oarefully eramined the Olaim you tanol0redin your lstter. The alalm is for postage lxpenae Hon. J. 8. Allred, page 2. at the rate of 21.50 per month for the past 8 years for a t0td or w4.00. The olalm Is not Itemized, The rtats- ment is ztade in the alalm that the postage was “used for mailing warrants for oounty in R & B Fund, I: & J Fund and Hospital Fund”. Opinion NO. O-1891 of this department passed upon this claim based upon the faot situation yreeented in the r4quest. The raot situation passed upon in opinion NO. O-1891, was a8 follows, quoting from the letter of request: “The OODrmiesloners~ Court of Baylor County has asked me, as their County Auditor, to get a ruling from you relative to payment or expenses or their oounty olerk over a period running baok as far as nine years for extra help and poe tageb It Is my understanding that this orri- oer’s tee8 are supposed to oover any extra help he uses in hi8 offloe, as ~411 as the expense for po8 tage. Euring the time I have been county auditor in Enylor county, which la only part time work, slnoe the Oounty Is not large enough to require full time, the county has paid this offloer 4x-orfiofo fn an amunt for county and district clerk avaraging around $1400.00 per year, and It ~483~9that th4se expenses should have been taken oar4 of by the offioer from theas payments, &so, in view or the faot that the or- fleer is expeoted to make an expense statement nonthly to the oourt, whlah he has done and In . which he has not alatied th4s4 expsnses, it is my belief that hs is not entitled to olalz them at this late date. “1 would like to have your opinion on this matter for the full period or any part of the nine year perlod.~ Opinion NO. O-1891, held that the county via6 not liable ror the expenses olaimed. W4 quote from the opinion as r0110vv0: “The oounty has paid the county olsrk ex- officio oompsnsatlon in the approximate sum of ~~1400.00 per year during the above mentioned nine year period. The Conmlesioners~ Court Is debarred from allowing compensation for ex orricio servloes to oounty orrlolals when the conpensatlon and ex- cess fees which they are allowed to retain shall rsaoh the maximum provided by law. .\a above stat- ed, oounty orrlolals who are oompensated on a fee basis must pay their expenses out of feea earned Eon. J. R. Allred, Iage 3 by their respective offices, and t:?o oon?mIssIon- em* oourt Is without authority to allow payzent of the sane by the oounty. “You are respeotfully advised that It la the opinion at this departzent that the above rentloned expenses of the oounty clerk should have bean paid by him iron fees of office and the oounty hes no authority to pap such expenses.” ?fe think Opinion no. O-1891 or this departzzent Is oorreot under tte faots stated and we adbtrs to that rUling. we also oall. your attention to the recent oa8e of Pierson vs. Gal- veston Cc,Inty, 131 3. W, (2nd) Page 27, which supports our oon- olu8ion reaahad In Opinion z&O-1891. In your request ror opinion Upon the o1al.m as now pmzeented you stat., among other things, as follows: W ..,. the aountp olerk now OCE~S baak with another olaim which he does not c1aiE is expenses or orrioe, but that it is ror acoomodations to the court and the individual oomiesioners, ets., 1n n.alc- Tng Out warrants, etc., which he is not legally bound to do but doer SO ior the oonveniencs of the pub110 and the pub110 orrioiais.~ You are therefore respectfully advised It Is the opin- Ion of this departmnt, under the taats stated In your letter, that Raylor County, Texas Is not legally liable for the claim described in your letter, and that same should not be approved. Very truly yours CTTCiSEY cE?XRAL OF “CTiiS $$iy&zL+ a9 Phn. J. Fanning Asri stant WJF:jm End1 ,