Opinion letter to the Honorable Joe H. Miller

... Honorable Joe H. Miller Prosecuting Attorney of car~ll County Carrollton1 fUssouri Dear I.-tr. Miller t '"--~ OPINION NO . 351 (17-1962) Answered by letter. 17 Tlna io in response to your request for advice as to \<Ihether the person who is both coWlty ni.grn·1ay engi- neer and county surveyor 1n carroll County may aooept compensation from a drainage district in Carroll County for "t·:ork perfo~d at 1 ts request. In your initial requeat you indicated that the engi- neer-surveyor might, in t he course or his employment by the drainage d1etr1ct, perform some work on tho hi5nway bridges across the drainage ditch. However, y-ou subse- quently advised that t he t1ork of t he engineer-surveyor for the drainage district would be liliPt~~d to "oversee- ing the repairing and maintenance of ' the drainage ditch such as clearing the brush, ma1nta1n1ns the f'looti gates and t'lOrk of t hat nature. n In v1etf or this latter fact ~~e w·ould have no hesitancy in holding that t he engineer- surveyor may be oo employed. ,. This position is based on the premise t hat the main- tenance of tbe ditch itself i s 1n no 1·1ay related to the duties of ootmty highnay, ~n~eer or thooe of coWlty survoyor. I f the maintenance· or the d1tch t'lerc part of or germane to the official duties of either the surveyor or engineer, the person. involved herein l·lould not be en- titled to any compensation fo~ his drainage district work Hon. Joe H. Miller -2- beyond that which he regularly rec~ives 1n hie dual capacity as engineer-surveyor. ~s rule received oomprehena1 ve treatment tn an opinion insued by th1~ o££1ce on September 8, 19611 to the Honorable Proctor N. Carter. A copy or that optnion is attached herewith. Enclosure AFthmc Very truly yours, rrmw:s ' . EAamt•ot: Atto~y General