Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
GA-1075
| Tex. Att'y Gen. | Jul 2, 2014Background
- Attorney General GA-1075 (Aug. 8, 2014) answers whether Maverick County Hospital District board members may hold other official roles concurrently.
- Question focuses on Texas Constitution Article XVI, §40(a) and the common-law doctrine of incompatibility (conflicting loyalties).
- Article XVI, §40(a) bars more than one civil office of emolument; emolument means pecuniary profit, gain, or advantage.
- The District board position is unpaid; reimbursement of expenses is allowed, so the position is not an emolument.
- The District is a public entity with an elected board that manages the district, thus board members are public officers for incompatibility purposes.
- Two scenarios analyzed: (1) a board member also serving as a municipal housing authority commissioner; (2) a board member also serving as county treasurer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Article XVI, §40(a) prohibit dual offices for a board member? | Board position is not an emolument since it is unpaid. | Not necessary to Bar; but §40(a) focuses on emolument, which is not present here. | Dual office-holding not prohibited by §40(a). |
| Can conflicting loyalties bar dual service between the hospital district and housing authority when contracts exist between them? | Potential for conflicting loyalties due to intergovernmental contracting. | Conflict depends on whether holding both interferes with independent judgment; factual inquiry. | Resolution is a factual inquiry; cannot be resolved in the opinion process. |
| Does incompatibility prohibit a board member from also serving as county treasurer? | Counts of duties could overlap with county governance. | Non-exclusive authority and lack of overlapping duties suggest no incompatibility. | Likely no conflicting-loyalties incompatibility; dual service would not be barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Pirtle, 887 S.W.2d 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (emolument concept and public office related considerations)
- Aldine Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Standley, 280 S.W.2d 578 (Tex. 1955) (definition of public officer and independence of office duties)
- Simmons v. Ratliff, 182 S.W.2d 827 (Tex. Civ. App. Amarillo 1944) (county treasurer authority and supervisory powers)