Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN I:on. I’. L. Larr&less, County Auditor Ah8rtc.nCounty Gharton, ‘iexas i?ear kr. Liarguess: \ Oplnlon Hp.-Ilki :I, to he: tii.ght-aPJreaaure,r claim aommissQms.~upon funds-qranaierrcd ?kpm run4 toanother within a I @%seyvat$on & keaiamaW&i striat $1 has accu- ns as such not be..elitltled to any oommlsslons on any district money received by him from his pre- decessor in offiae.” By the lanfuaye of auah statute It Is clear- ly seen that jt was contemplated by the Leelslature ucr;. 7. -. harquess cenuery 2Oth, '371 jf2 that the cmm.lsslons therein provided for,v.eretL be paic she treasurer for all scms zf roney recojvqd by hix fcr the account snd the behefft cl"such dis- trict an; for ail sms of mcSncy~?aid::utby the dis- trict as legltln.ateexpenses. Vnder the state 0r facts as presented by you, it is quite clear t!mt the district received no money, nor xas any -or.eypaid out by the district. At represents but a transfer of f,;ndsi'romone fund to another v::thlnthe dlstlict itselr. The statute Eakes no =rovislon for aommls- slcns to be paid the treasurer for transferring funds within the district. You are thererore respectfully advised that the treasurer of the Conservation b I~eclematlonDis- trict @i is not entitled tc any ccmlsslcns for hav- ing made the transfers r.entionedby you. SY Lloyd ;<,r:;s tr;:,ng r i,ssistant