lontis sleet and on* Road and Eridge Do- lowiry manner: The lopsea mother me Would it be a violation of aw for the County Commissioner eleot to tote ror, appoint, or oonflrm the appointment or an employee of the Road and Bridge Department of the CotUW who is a second oousin ooneanguln- lty, and one who is a third cousin to the oommis- sioner by Oonsanguinlt~.

“. . . .:’

Eonorabla Charlee R. Martin, Pwa 2

Art1414 432, v4m0n’o b0t8t0a Te~48 P404~ c0d0, reads am followat *wo oftioar oi this stats or any oftlear of a8iy

blatriot, ooauty, oity graoinot, aohool dlmtrlot, otothar arrnlolpelaub&lviJonof this Stak,or may otiiser or amabar or may 8ta&a, dlatrlot, aoua- tf, oltr, sohqcd Uatriot o*,ethar mudolp41 b0u4, br or rmd8r author, 00 Ja&ao~ot my oorirt, oruwa l Oi& .&U Oi bhla State, Or itr Of 84 6SWl-d or S aat amber Leg18 !a Yota tu, or aollfla the~appofOfw*m tqr0 ah4ll appoint, $0 any ottioe, or a.~ 0;. 8OObiOm3 n~~'rs~b,'md 535.

Opti& ;o. +&i ii this ~aputmant holds tha rplommt by om eomrty owmlaalonar ot tha neph8u of another

Honorable Charles R. Martin, Page 3

oounty oommlsaloner to be paid out of county funds would be in violation oi Artlola 432 or the Penal Cod4 0r this state.

Opinion No. O-556 of this departm4nt holda that It would ba a ~IolatIoa or Art1014 432, Penal Oode or Texas, ror a oouuty 40afaiaalon4r 0r on4 pr4olnot of a oouaty to appoint as overaaor the nephew or th4 ooamisnionar of another pr4oInot or the oounty, or ta hire a relative wIthIn the prohibited ds- of the oounty to repair road ma- gr44 of another oosnlsaloner ahlnery of oounty rrhen 1x354 was to be paid out ot' oounty runda.

Opinion Ho. O-2925 of this departakeat also holds lllagal the eaploymtmt oounty oonmlaaloner of the brother-in-law or another county oommIsaIoaar ror road work to be paid out of the road and bridge ruada ot tha oouaty.

Under t!14 faots statad in qaaatlon Ao. 1 the aop- mlenioner and #a amployar are related within the bird dagree. W4 ammum tram your latter thla relation la by ooaaaagu5~ Ity if thla assumption b4 oorr4ot it la our opinion that the 4s~ oymnt would be 1114gal and your question ahotild be an- i

aw0raa in tha arrlmaitl~a.

In aamer to your twaond question it la our oplnIon that th4 4mplopmat of tha aaaond aoualn, who Is related afth- ln the third days8 to the oounty aosumlsalonsr by eonsanguln- ity* would be illegal, but that tha 4laployarsnt or tdls oounty oommiaalonarta third eousln, ralatad to him rithln the fourth dagraa by ooneangtlinity, would not ba lllogal.

Vex7 truly yours A'lTORNEY QEBew OF TEXAS !Yn. J. Panning Aaalstau t