Montana Attorney General Opinion 15-67

Opinion No. 67 Counties - Donations - Chalitable In- stitutions - Couuty Conunissioners - Powers - Candidates - Con'upt Prac- tices-Employment of 'Extra Assistants -Deputies-Emel'gencies, Hl~LD: No count~' lIlay legall~' do- na te a ny money to any clla ri ta ble i n- stitution except such institutions as are under its exclusi\'e control. l.'he Board of County Commissioners has no valid authority to appoint any- one to -attend any meeting for any pur- pose, at the expense of the county. The offer of a candidate for public office to serve for ~ salary less than allowed by statute is mel'ely a proposal that no one is authorized to accept and is in violll'Dion of the corrupt practices aot. Except in emergencies which will )lOt admit of delay, the county commission- ers must authorize the employment of all extra employees hefore they can claim compensation; once the authori- zation is obtained, the official who de- sires the extra. help may choose his employee, 53 February 7, ]933, You request the opinion of this office on the following questions: "1. Can a county legally donate county moneys to charita hIe institu- tions such as the ~Iontana Children's Home, the ~:lontana Deaconess Home, the Kalispell AmbUlance Fund. or oth- er similar organizations, or are such donations prohibitNI IJy section 1 of article XIII of the Constitution of the State of Montana? "2. Does the law authorize the hoard of county commissioners to ap- point some indhidual (not a member of the hoard) to attend a meeting or hearing on their behalf and at the expense of the count~', said meeting or hearing being in some city outside of the county'! In other words, can the board appoint some outside per- son to a ttend a meeting in some other city as their representath'e or on their behalf and pay the expenses of such persons for at:tending such meeting, or is the law to the effect that the hoard must act themselves and that they cannot delegate their powers or duties to another person? "3. Can a county officer accept a voluntary cut in salary during his term of office, or is it not only unlaw- ful hut also contrary to the constitu- tion to increase or diminish the sa lary of an officer during his term of of- fice? ,Vould it not virtually be a Yio- lation of the Corrupt Practice Act for an officer -to t-ake a voluntary reduc- tion of salary a few months before election, and would this not tend to bring about open bidding for an office if the incumbent we I'e to t~lke a volull- tary cut of $15.00 per month and then his oppouent might counter with an offer to take a reduction of $25.00 in salary if elected? "4, If a county officer employs some one to do some work for him, should the officer pay the party in cash and then file a claim against the county for reimbursement. or should he require the party to file the claim himself, as pro\'ided in section No. 4604 of the He\'ised Codes'! Would this also apply to an ill\'estigation by the county attorney in a case where the claim of the indiy·idual would ex- pose nothing more than was exposed in the cia im of the county attorney'!" 54 OPI~lOXS OF THE AT'l'OHXEY GEXERAL Xumber 1 is controlled by se0tion 5 of Article X and section l' of Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of Montana. The construction placed upon these two proYisions of the constitution. con- ,'iderel1 together, is that no county may leg-ally donate any money to any char- ita hIe institution, except such institu- tions as are under its exclusil'e control. Number 2 is controlled by section 1632. R. C. M. 1921. as amended by chapter 176. Laws of 1929, and section 4464. R. C. M. 1021. There is no other prO\i-sion of the statutes of ~Iontana hearin:.: upon the question submitted and, as ~'ou will note, there is no au- thority anywhere in these two provi- sions of our st-a tutes authorizing any memiler of the hoard to appoint anyone to attend any meeting for any purpose. at the expense of the county. The prop- er policy and practice laid down for hoards of county commissioners in elaiming- compensn tion other than is specifically allowed by statute is very nbly defined by .Tustice Sanner in State v. Story, 53 Mont. 573. ~umber 3: The salaries of county officers are fixed by the lel,rislath'e as- semhly and the amount is specifically named in the statute, except that com- pensation of county sun-eyors in coun- ties ha "ing- a voting popula tion of less than 15.000 is on a per (liem basis and for the time employed. and the comJ)C'n- Hation of coroners and public admin- h'trators are on a fee basis controlled b~' sta tute. The offer of a candidate for public office to sen'e for a salary less than allowed by statute is merely a proposal that no one is authoIized to accept and is not binding. Hicks y. Stillwater Co. s-! Mont. 38. On March 30, 1932, Attorney General Foot rendered an opinion sUPPol'ted by numerous authorHies to the effect that Huch promises do ,iolate the Corrupt Practices Act and the reasoning of such authorities seems sound and would probably be the rule followed hy our flupreme Court. Volume 14. Opinions of the A-rtorney General, page 270. ~umber 4: As a rule the county commissioners must authori7.e the em- ployment of all extra employees before they can claim compensation from the county and after such employment is authorized by the board of county commissionerf'. the official who desires the extra help may choose his em- plo~·ee. The only exception to t his rule is in emergencies, where such emerg-ency ,,-ill not permit of the delay nccessary for the hoard to assemble.