Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion, GA-1083

Requester asks whether a juvenile probation officer who also serves as the presiding member of the Sweetwater Independent School District Board of Trustees creates a conflict of interest.
The Department of Fisher, Mitchell, and Nolan counties funds part of the District; the officer is employed by the Department as a probation officer.
Potential interactions include District-budget decisions affecting Department funding and meetings between the District and Department personnel called by the presiding member.
The District's budgetary involvement and possible meetings implicate constitutionally protected separation of powers and incompatibility concerns.
The analysis proceeds through (A) constitutional prohibition, (B) common-law incompatibility (self-appointment, self-employment, conflicting loyalties), and (C) Local Government Code Chapter 171 conflicts of interest.
The conclusion is that concurrent service is not prohibited and does not constitute a Chapter 171 conflict, with prudent steps suggested.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Article XVI, §40 bar the dual service?	Requester anticipated a constitutional bar to dual offices.	Article XVI, §40 does not apply because the district trustee position is not an emolument office and other doctrines apply.	No constitutional bar; dual service permitted.
Do incompatibility doctrines prohibit concurrent service (self‑appointment, self‑employment, conflicting loyalties)?	Incompatibility may block holding both positions.	None of the three incompatibility facets prohibit the dual service here.	None of the incompatibility doctrines prohibit the dual service.
Does self‑employment incompatibility apply to this scenario?	District presiding member could supervise or control actions affecting the officer.	District does not supervise Department employees; funding does not create control; no basis for self‑employment incompatibility.	Self‑employment incompatibility does not bar the dual service.
Do Local Government Code Chapter 171 conflicts of interest prohibit the arrangement or require disqualification?	Substantial interest and appearance of impropriety may mandate disqualification.	Chapter 171 requires disclosure and abstention if a substantial interest exists; it does not bar concurrent service.	Not a bar; prudent to declare and abstain if a substantial interest is present.

Aldine Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Standley, 280 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. 1955) (distinguishes between public officer status and independent public duties)
Harris Cnty. v. Schoenbacher, 594 S.W.2d 106 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1979) (juvenile probation officer not an officer; subordinate role to board)
Ehlinger v. Clark, 8 S.W.2d 666 (Tex. 1928) (incompatibility from appointment and appointee in same body)
Tilley v. Rogers, 405 S.W.2d 220 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont 1966) (definition of civil office and public officer; separation of powers context)
State ex rel. Hill v. Pirtle, 887 S.W.2d 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (limits on official duties and public office concepts in Texas)