Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

827 OFFICE OF THE AITORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN XanO~blO rornutar Baaoook Crhinal Dlatrlot Attornq Waxahaehie,Taxa@ Dear aim Atturtiant Mr.t& Wllaon &amlLne to an Qittapon- a tnutae or Mid 8ah8glbu8 a rfolatlon all aattled &i Pera@ that ii a ubllo or lndlraatlyham a peourdary Ill- ot, no matterhow honort he may ba, ha w not be intluenod by the fntuwt,. rueh a aontraot in agaln8t publio oliq. 8k+ MO W8, ot aX v. Walkmr, at al, 606 6. W. iO6. On Juua 1% , 1989, t& AttOrIZeJl09¶1W#ki'~IBIpU4XIbWt F~aWOa QpfalOn 828 fionorablePo~:eater Eiiancook, pale e 130.O-876, holding that board 0r trustees or 4n ind4- pecdent school district oannot legally purahase fuel rrom a aorporatlohwherein one of the maIna atock- holder4 and officers of the oorpontiou Is a member or the board 0r trustees. We believe this opinion Ia equally applloabloto the faots eet out In your letter. You also state In your letter that Artlo 373, Penal Code, does not obtain as thfs article appllea only to county or aity orrioers reaalring 4molwb3nt6rroa their position. Artio14 373, Pen41 CO&t?.rer:a~ as r0n0w6: *xr pnr 0rri44r 0r any 00ay, or 0r any olty or town shall become In any manuer peounlarlly Interestedin auy oontraot8au&da by suoh oounty, olty or tewu, through ltm agents, or otherwise,for the oonetruatlon or repair of any bridge, road, tireat, ally or house, or auy other work undertakenby auoh oounty, city or town, or shall become int4rf34t4a in say bla or proposal ror such work or in the purchase or aale or anythIn& mede for or on acoount or such county, aftr or town, or who ah&l1 eontraot for or reaeite any money or property, or the repraeentatlro of either, cm any eraolrrprant or advgntage whatsoever In aouslderationof suoh bid, pro- POaal, contraat,purohase or sale, he shall be fIned not less than fifty nor more than fire hundred dollars.* be are unable to agree dth your oonteution that a per- son must reoeire some eaoluaent from hIa offlao In order to be a county, aity or town oifioer within the ni@anIng of Art1014 373, aupra. W belleve that a aarerul readins of the statute will dIsOloe4 that no such eou- dition:'IaInterposed. 310qall your attention to the tollowIuS on848 holding shat a aahool trust44 ie a aouuty orflaerr Saherz Y. ToHer, 74 S. X. tea) 327k Henderiake 0. State, ex rel Eckford, 40 3. %;'. 705; Fouler, et al Y. Thouas, et al, 273 S. X.,SS3. These oases, however, dealt with 829 Eonorable Forrester Eanoock, page S alvll rights and interpretationof diiferent otatutes. We also am11 your attention to the oamo of RIgby v. State, Z7 Court af Appeals 63, 112~5.~2. 760, wherein the court ueee the followin& lsnguage in eon- strulng whet Is now known as Article 373, Penal Code: "Our aonstruotionof the 4tatute is that It InhIbIte any otrloer or a eouuty, city or town iraP 86lling to or purohasing from suoh corporationany property whatever." AftOr detemluing whether or not a school trustee Ie a oounty offloar within aeanfng 0r Artlala 373, supra, we are still raeed with the propositionor determIningwhether an Independentsohool dlstrlot Is a county, alty or town wlthlu the meanlug of said Artiale. The statute makea It unlawful for sn orrloer of a county, city or town to sell gasoline to said aounty, city or town but the statute does not mka it unlawful ior amid orfloer to sell gasoline to an Inde- pendent sahool dI8trIot. It was held In the oaes of Hall Y. State, 80 Texae Criminal iZ4porte109, le8 S. W. 1008, that a treasurer of en independentschool Ulatrlet 00ola not be proseoutud undar Article 1580, Revised Orlmlnal Statutes or 1911, whlah reads; "Any oounty or city treasurer, or treasurer of thd sciboolof each alty or town harltagexclusive oontrol of its sohools, Salliag to make and t.ranmalt tha report required by law, * * * shall be demo guilty or a mi6donmmr, * * *~* The Hall case, aupra, holds that a fkeasurer of an Independentschool di8trIat was not included wlth- in the term, wany aounty treaeurer~. Followlog the 4~1~4 line or reasonlug,one selling gasolIn to an Lndspendent school aistriot Is not selling It to a aOllnty,olty or town. Sin06 Artial4 373, supra, is a peZU!tl st&UtO, we are or the opinion that It osnnot be aormtruad to make 830 Honorable Forreater Eaaaook, page 4 it un&uful ror a person to sell gasoline to an fma0- pendent sahool dlstrlot when su4h p4reon is a trustea or said aahool district. Our oourta have oonslstently held that penal statutes oamot be extended beyond their plain meaning. In the case of itatcllSf f. State, 100 Tex. CrIm. Hop. 37, the iollowlng language la quoted from Lewis SutherlandStatutory Construotlon, Seation 520: "The oaae must be-a ~4ry strong one Indeed which would justify a oourt in de- parUng from the plain meaning of the words, eapealallyIn a penal mat, in searoh ot an intentionwhich the words themaelvea did not suggest.* We oonalude that the asle of gasolins by a pereon to an independentaahool distriot, suoh person being a trustee oi said sohool df8triat, to be used in a school bus 18 not in violation of Article 373, Penal Code, notwlthstiinalngthat the oontraot la void ss against pub110 polloy. we may 8ay rurther that w hare been unable to find any artlele in the Penal Code whloh would mke this met a OrIme. Your letter rurthbr rslses the qu4stion whether or not the 8aIa trustees aan be removed traPr offloe under the provIaIons of Art10148 5970 and 6973, R. C. S., 198b. Art. 6970, supra, reads, in part, as hollows: ". . . all oountp ofricers now or harcl- after dxlstlng br authority alther of the aonstltutlonor laws, msy bs removed from orriae by the fudge 0r the distrlot oowt for Inaomp4tenag,ofrlalalmlsoonduct. . .* ilrt. 5973, rsmlgra, reads as rolle#wsr "By *oirIclalmlsaonduot,las used herein with referenoe to oounty offloera, is meant any unlawful behavior in relation to the duties oi his oftlao, wllful in Its ahara4t4r. at any orfloer entrwted in arq mmn8r with tha adSilnl6- tratlon oi ft~t.1~6,or the axeoutlon d the laW8; and inolude8 auy rllrul or oorrnpt iallure, x-e- or nsgleat 0r an orrioer te perform any rtt8tti duty enjoined on h&n by law.* Baaarable Forrester Ransock, page 6 A trustee OS an ladependontsohool dlattrlat la a aaunty offloer dthln the meaning of dstlcle 5970, eupra; 8enAerloks v. Stats, 80 C. A. 178, 49 S. iF.706. It I8 a roll establl8hedrule, even ln the abeems OS a statute, that oae ln hi6 olflolal aap8olty oaanot Aedl with hineslf in hi8 lnAlvl4uala8paolty. Thla wa8 the nrle 8t OOmman law and le the 18~ in Texnr. Se8 Yejors v. Walker, 616 9. %?.503, and aUthOriti80 olted therein. In tho Noyora oa88, eupra, the Court of Civil Appeals at Ea8tlamI uwtl the Sollowlng 1angu8get "It i8 but fair that tho pub110 mauey 8hOuld b8 8pelltin the -eC and Umy prOrid. by law. The88 8af8gual%¶8 in letting OOntmOt8 were not provide& with the thbt@t that the pub110 otffofti WE8 OOrrupt, but that, in th8 8XPOildittWO Of poblio PonOr, th8 8triote8t regulremeatsharrldbe followed. Our lm5ek8rs V8r0 Wi8,e in tmi’ing, llOt OZlly t0 IO8lOV8t88lpta- tiOll,but to ptiO8 the pub110 offlo 01811 above the 8u8plolOn of wrongdoing. The i&e8 of koeplng the public in th8 oonfldenoeot the oitlolal would bring co-ape~atloaantiloyalty la the aAmlnlsttratlonaf government and doroe- ment Of law, and thm8e prlnOip188underlie the 88UU?itJrQ? OUT &JV8mXIt. !l!he old adqp,, ‘8OnO8ty 18 the be8t pOliOy*, wuld weld be wora an the 6oor8top8 of wary hme end ln the heart of 8Tory 8eFVf45 p8r8on. If our @mOmI- meat mrvI~e8, it wlllbe by rm88on of the oonfldenoe in the hon88ty of the Offloldl8 aad the fid81ltr a? the people. The way to keep confideno 18 to 8bhor that whloh ten&8 to evil and olaa+8 to the ri$ht.* fn Ch8n8f 1. &%UOe, 166 Zad. 860, 77 H.2. 1041, 117 AR. St. R8p. 391, the OQul?tquoted With 4lpprOta1 fMn Dillon, Yuulolp8.lCOl'pOlWtiOXi8, the ir11Qwiz@t "*It lo a well-eattabliohed and sad.u$ary l 8a y 8 do o tr lne, 6.AicltingPished author, 'that he who $6 entrusted rith fh8 bu8iW88 Of Other8 oannat be Illcwed to make 8uah brr8inQ88 8s ob- Jeat or peeualary profit to hbtmelf~' TbU MO Kanctook,peg8 6 Bonorabla ,*Orte8t8r do48 not depend on reasoning teahnioal in it8 charaoter,and la not looal in its ap~llcatl0n* It i8 ba88d on prinoipl88 of reason, of m0rallt.y,and or pub110 policy. It ha8 it8 touadatlan in th8 very oonstltutlonor our nature, for it ha8 been authorltatlrslybeen deolared that a mu OclmOt 8OlT8 tW0 iBWtOr8, aad f6 reOOgnf88d and enforoed whorover a wall-regulated 8y8tOOior jurirrprudeno8prevall8.*R In Stat8 V. Wlndle, 156 Iud. 64L3,59 R.E. 676, the oourt ulleathe folloniog language: The general rule, applicable to pri- Vat8 fidUeiWi88, prohibiting t&m fro&Z t8klng advantage of their poslticanto m8ks profit for th0m88ltO8out of the tru8t 88tdt8, 8houlQ be 8triOtlf OniOrOsd a&TkiUt publla offlobraWho are guilty or ilimllar malfeaaanoe.~ It is not aeoessary for a pub110 offloar to be o&ugeQ or aonrleted of a 0rl.m in order to be r8- roved from office for al8aonQtlot. In KaeUng T. Moore, MS S. 15.846, the Q8fuldant6~ rohaal tru8tOe8,we fortndgulltr of *mlaoonUuot in offloe* In that ther boome pOOUd.arily int8IWabd in OO&~Ot8 t0 8eU ma- terials to the 8Ohool and to porforrpservices for the sohool. The oourt defined WlsoonAuOt in offlcem ta be 8ny unlawful behavior by a public offlo8r in r03.w tion to the dutie8 of hirr offloo willful in OhU8Ot8r. Notwithstandingthe fast that thi8 OffOu88 '1118E&Q8 illagO by 8tatUtO, th8 OOIWt Said1 %Wmifestly ths purposs of the rtstute Wa8 to proteat the publlo. The finding that d8f8ubaat8Oa#f&ttOd 08I'tainact8 prohibited by statute, da08 not OOuviOt th8laOf the Oriminal Off8W8 8rWt8d by the 8tatUtO. . . But th8 aot8 ehargod to oonatitute km&rid. behavior in their official oapaolty.* In ths ca8e 0f Howard Y. Gulf, C. and 8. r. By. co., 136 St X. 707, it -8 by th8 cOdi Of 8ait.i Clrll Appeal& that the antedatlag of owtain paper8 by tbO Olsrk of the Qlbtrlot o@urt would render mab olark riubjaatto rmnoval from 0rria0 for orriolal af8oonbuat. 833 Baaronble Fometer Eamook, pa$e U The aaurt MI& that th8 olerlcoould be removed Under p~i8iQ118 Or APL 3681, BbcT.St.. uQb. IMOrM 88 the que8tian lnvolti 18 001100rImdAx%. 5651, mpra, aaA Art. 6W0, aupra, are ldantlod aud the term *0?i10id 8Ii8OWQWW. -8 dOriKi8d8t at tiKW by Art. 5654, Rev. SC., 1898, ia the 8nm8 18ngaag8 a8 it 18 ~01 defined by Art. 6973, SUP=. In holdin& that the not8 eommlttwl by the olerk ammnted to offlolal It8oonduat, the oourt 8aldz "And when, wlthouf the 8On88KKtof both iitigMt8, M& rOr th8 p9FpO80 O? 8eOUring to one of them a rl@t whioh he otheml8e would not have, that orfioer ullfux4 8i8bat.8 his file mark, he oomlte an aof nhleh i8 a fraud upon'the other party and oamtltutem g-88 OiiiOirl ti800S.tdUOts &nd whloh he e8n should be remavetlrrw ortloe, . F.T aad -- fn the Cl888Of 8@8W8 7. state 268 8.w. b’P7 (Rwer88Q oa other youads, 860 S.W. 666), t,haooort define8 the word "w llfti* a8 Ln arredIn Art. 6913, a. c. 8.. m5, (L8rOuW8K ?thrOrd 'tillfti'iirP68d inth8 8en8e of a oon8olous and intentionalfailure or re?u88l to perfors or keep Inviolate any duty impe8ed an that orrie0r.~ We oonelUQe that a 8OhoOl froetse who ha8 8Old aad knowingly oOntlnw8 to 8011 gasoline to #id 80ho41 di8triot, Of whloh he is a t?UtiOO, 18 8ubJeot to r8maval fram orfit Under the pr0rl8lons0s Art. bW0 8ml 6973, eupra. V?etrUH that this opinion will 8atl8faatorl- ly M8WOr YOU2 QtlO8tiOXK8. ATTOBNHX GSWiAL OF TNIAS