OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
,
Honorable I. I. Geren
Oounty Attorney
Limestone County
Oroesbeck, Texas
Dear Sir: 0p1n&R0, o-2&
2e: Khethe* or, nok~-.B trustee
i' ." . of a consol%dotg rural
/' 'Jligh school hlc,t?lct can
I ~1 V~lldly receive ccnpensa-
('> (/" \!tlbp rror the contractor
,/ r0y ccrpentcr work per-
'\ \\,..
“\ C~~~~o~~yBI~'l~~~~tn:n~'le
Ye.-" \ '\,,, ~~,rcr the soh0ol district.
,' '~
,., ‘1
Ye &cc ,<'ed‘)& letter'dnted .!+ril 26, 1140 rc-
~questln~ our pi Son on t+e r0110wic~ quer;tlm wvfich m
,quote rror, youfh ,lewr:r as ~011~~s:
,.I
'\ '\.\
'.~“i,Can a Drustcq&or& cnnsolldcted rural
irrh sc$col di'strict receive co::~ensction trrr.
tb -“RrAt.r?otrr fc.~ gdr&enter work rerf,-c'ed cn
-r' huildiac.the contreotrr is eroctine: fu:,r t!;e
i chool &iatd,ct?"
'\ ‘i
lk weil settled
',,,It in Texr-.s tl!et if a public cf-
\
rlaial~Clm~93y.or indirectly hns a pecuniary lntcrcst in a
oontract no ratter how honest 1:e troy be, and althou@ !;o
may not b ‘8. ,&pflUenCed by tte interest, cuoh a contraot is
against public policy. Meyers ot cl ~3. Xnlker et cl, 278
0. w. 305.
Vnder t!;e facts set out ln y"ur lettor, we 8ssiLme
that tile contrectcr 1s an lndarendent contrnct,lr. This
being tr;:e, the ~111 of the sohool boz!rd 13 repreccntod only
an to t!?e result of the wrk end tte ccntrectrr is left to
deterzlne the r;znnnr and r'enr,s involved in the perfqrrolce
,0r said ccntrlict.
Honorable I. I. Gcran, page 2
If, at the time the controot in question was lot,
there was no agreement, express or implied, between the con-
tractor and the school trustoe with refercnco to the om-
ployment in question, it would appear tbnt the trustoe ln
question has no suoh Pecuniary interost in tho oontrcct ES
to make it void under the pub110 policy doctrine.
Vie rocofgize the iaot that such e situation AS
herein involved -ic??t be subject to crltlolst~ due to the
iact that the bocrd of trusteeo must acoept the work when
ocmpleted. k situation might nrise here whsrehy the trustee
would hAVe conflicting interests. That 1~ to guy, thrre azy
be e tendency on the part of the school trustee, because of
ruoh employment, to induce the approval of the work when
acmpleted which otherwise might not be epprovcd. Notwith-
rtandlnS We posnlblllty thnt certain c’onfllctlng interests
alght arise undor the contract of employmont, wo ara of the
- opinion thot the mere existence of such a possibility would
not preclude the employment under t!je public policy d0ctrir.e.
In our @Pinion ITo. O-1589, this Dopartrent held
that trustees of an lndepel~!dent school district were not
subject to the provisions of Article 373, I‘enel Code. For
the reasons set out in thut opinion, e copy cf wl-ich is
onolosed, wo are of tho opinion that Article 373, supra,
her no applicntion to your question here.
Yours very truly
A’,TTC~XIT C?Tr:%‘.:. CF ‘I’?y.lS
Glenn R. Iewis
Assistant
I oe Shoptaw