Case Information

*1 September 18, 1975 Opinion No. H- 695 The Honorable John Lawhon District and County Attorney Re: Whether a county may

Denton County pay the director of its public P. 0. Box 44 health district a salary plus Denton, Texas 76201

fees for certain other services.

Dear Mr. Lawhon:

You have requested our opinion concerning the following questions:

(1) May a county pay the director of its public health a salary of $12, 000. 00 per year and also

pay that director or other member of his medical firm $275. 00 per autopsy that he or a member of his medlcal firm performs?

(2) May a county pay that director of his medical

additional fees performed by them?

(3) May the health unit purchase drugs and other that director or his firm? that t~he director and ot.her members of his firm are the only practicing patho:logists Article 4447a, V. T. C. S. , provides statutory authorization for t,he formation of a health district.

Section 6 provides that the authority vested in the county health officer may be transferred to the director of a health d,istrict. Section 5(b) provides “shall be compensated in accordance the terms of the agree- ment under which the dlst~rict is formed. ” The agreement in this instance provides for the compensation of the director Tao be specified in the annual bud- get.

I‘hus. the additional amount. if any. of the public health district would for performing an autopsy would be determined in the annual budget. Art~c.lc, 49. 0’3. Cocl~: of Crimin;lI Procedure, provides guidance as to the maximum fee p<:r ,g,utopsy which can be paid.

p. 301s *2 ,‘. ,

Your second and third questions concern cont.racts between a health and the director or his medlcal firm for laboratory services, drugs, and other not used in connection with an autopsy.

the director’s is the only firm performing the required

In Attorney General Opinion M-340 (1969) it was concluded that:

. . . It is contrary to public policy for a physician, a member of a Board of Trustees of a community center to receive compensation for patient. referral the center. . . .

It is contrary t,o public policy of this State a member of a Board of Trustees of a community center to be a member of a Board of Trustees and a stockholder of corporations cont,racting the community center.

This determination was in reliance upon Meyers v. Walker, 276 S. W. 305, 307 (Tex. Civ.App. --Eastland 1925, no writ) in which it was held that:

If a public official directly or indirectly has a pecuniary interest in a contract, no matter how honest he may be, and al~though he may not be influenced by the interest, such a contract so made is violative of the spirit and letter of our law, and is against

See Attorney General Opinions H-638 (1975), ‘WW-1241 (1962). V-640 (1948), v-381 (1947). Accordingly, in our opinion any contract. express or implied, of a health district pu’blic policy and should not be entered into.

SUMMAR’Y Where aut.horized by the agreement forming the public health district, of a district may rompensat ion in addit ion t:o his regular salary for the performance of.a properly authorized autopsy.

A contract of a health Attorney General of Texas Opinion Committee

jad: