We have your letter of May 15, 1942, in which you ask the opinion of this department upon the following questions:

"1. Can an independent school district board enter into a contract for the purchase of school materials from a store or other place of business when one of its members works in said store or place of business and is the son-in-law of the owner of said store or place of business? "2. Can an independent school district board enter into a contract with a place of business when one of its members is the son of the owner of said place of business?"

We have also received your letter of May 14, 1942, in which you ask the following two additional questions:

"1. Is a contract invalid which is entered into between the board of trustees of an independent school district and a corporation when one of the members of the board of trustees is also a atook holder in the corporation and is employed by the corporation?

*2 Honerable Arnold Smith, page 2 2. If question No. 1 is anovered 'No,' then, in a vote on such contrest by this board of trustees, at which time such atook holder is presiding, and three trustees vote 'No,' and three trustees vote 'Yes' for such contrect, and then if said presiding affiear seats the deciding vote in favor of the contract with this corporation, is such contract valid?"

We have held that Article 373, Penal Code, is not applicable to independent achool distriet trustees acting as such in ayarding contrecte for the achool district. Opinion No. 0-1589. However, it is well established in Texas that oontrasta entered into by a public affiear in his offisial cepecity are illegal and void if such officer either directly or indirectly has a pecuniary interest in such contract. Meyers, et al. v. Walker, et al., 276 s. W. 305; Opinions 20. 0-878, No. 0-1014, No. 0-1589, No. 0-2306, No. 0-2856 and No. 0-2980. We quote the following from the opinion of the coart in the Meyers case: "Contrasta in their nature calculated to influence the action of public officers and the effect of which is to influease them one way or the other are against public policy.' If a public official directly or indirectly has a pecuniary interest in a contract, no matter how honest he may be, and although he may not be influenced by the interest, such a contrast so made is violative of the spirit and letter of our law, and is against public policy."

We do not have the full facts before us. In connection with the questions you ask in the letter of May 13, 1942, you state that the board member "owns no atook or interest in the atore or place of business." We believe that in connection with these questions you want to know whether the relationship between the trustees and the owner of the business establishment vitiates such contrasta. Since you do not advise us to the contrary, we are compelled to assume in connection with your questions of May 13th that the trustees receives no eomnisaion, bonus, or any other form of compensation, and has no pecuniary interest whatsoever in the contract, for any such interest, either direct or indirect, would render the contract

*3

Honorable Arnold Smith, page 3

illegal. We must also asume in sonaestion with such questions that the trustee is not an offieer of the business eatablishmont owned by his father or father-in-law.

The relationship alone is not auffioient to invelidate the contrect. Therefore, in view of the fects before us and the assumptions we have made, you are respectfally advised that the board of trutces may enter into a contract for achool materials with the father or father-in-law of one of the trustees if such trustee has no pecuniary interest, either directty or indirectly, in the contrect, and this is true even though the trustee is an employee in the business eatablishmant owned by his father or father-in-law. Opinion No. 0-2856.

In your letter of May 14th you ask, first, whether the board of trustees may enter into a contract (we presume, for supplies) with a oorporation where one of the trustees is a atock holder of the oorporation. We have answered this question in the negative in Opinions No. 0-878 and No. 0-2980, copies of which are enalosed for your consideration. As we have answered this question in the negative, the second question asked in your letter of May 14th does not eall for an answer.

We wish to enphasize that this opinion is oxpressly limited to the fact situation disclosed in your letters and to the assumptions made.

Very truly yours

GWB: db Enclosures

APPROVE: GMRRSEL DE PRKAS