17-137
Montana Attorney General Opinion 17-137
Length: 1,431 wordsOfficial source
Cite as 17 Mont. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 137
Opinion No. 137.
County Commissioners-Powers to
Lease Property.
HELD:
1. County Commissioners
under Sec. 4465.21 and 4465.24. R. C. M.
1935, as amended, have power to lease
and rent county machinery when in
the discretion of the Board such leas-
ing or renting is for the best interest
of the county and the use of the ma-
chinery is not then necessary for county
purposes.
2. Members of the Board of County
Commissioners cannot become inter-
ested directly or indirectly in lease or
rental agreements of county machinery.
acting both as agent for machinery
company and county.
August 13. 1937.
State of Montana
Division of Public Accounting
Office of State Examiner
The Capitol
Attention of Mr. A. M. Johnson,
Deputy State Examiner.
Gentlemen:
We have your letter, inclosing a
copy of Machine Lease Agreement,
also copies of statements of payments
and copies of claims of the Town of
Troy, pertaining to all of which you
are asking three several and distinct
questions
which
will
be
answered
chronologically.
1. Is the above machine lease agree-
ment legal?
The lease as presented is legal as to
contractual form and comes within the
implied powers of the commissioners
to perform, provided other elements of
the statute are complied with. Section
4465.21 provides that:
"The board of county commission-
ers has jurisdiction and power under
such limitations and restrictions as
are prescribed by law: To represent
the county, and have the care of the
county property, and the management
of the business and concerns of the
county in all cases where no other
provision is made by law."
Section 4465.24 provides that:
"The board of county commission-
ers has jurisdiction and power under
such limitations and restrictions as
are prescribed by law: To perform
all other acts and things required by
law not in this title enumerated, or
which may be necessary to the full
discharge of the duties of the chief
executive authority of the county gov-
ernment."
Section 4465.27 provides that:
"The board of countv commission-
ers has jurisdiction and power under
such limitations and restrictions as
are prescribed by law: To lease and
demise county property, however ac-
quired, which is not necessary to the
conduct of the county's business or
the preservation of county property
and for which immediate sale cannot
be had. Such leases shall be in such
man,ner and for such purposes as, in
the Judgment of the board, shall seem
best suited to advance the public
benefit and welfare. and all revenue
derived therefrom. except as other-
wise provided shall be paid into the
.ounty treasury. On the tenth dav of
January and the tenth day of Jul; in
t'ach year the county treasurers shall
distribute such revenues to the sf'verol
county and trust and agency funds
on the basis of the tax levy for the
preceding calendar year.
All such
property must be leased subject to
sale by the board, and no lease shall
be for a period to exceed three (3)
years."
You will note from the above sec-
tions that the statute vested in the
county commissioners very compre-
hensive
powers over the
business.
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GEXERAL
151
property, and affairs of the county.
The Constitution provides that county
commissioners may be invested with
local administrative powers, and the
statute invested them with authority
-over county property, business, and
affairs.
Ransom v. Pingel, et aI., (Mont.)
65 Pac. 2d. 616, 618.
Section 4605.1 requires that a re-
quest for bids is necessary in making
purchases exceeding one thousand dol-
lars, and the purchase under the Ma-
chine Lease Agreement, which is a
lease agreement, exceeds this amount.
This means to say that the contract
cannot be held to be invalid, but under
Section 446, R. C. M. of 1935, is
voidable. So, if there are no objections,
it is only reasonable to believe that the
contract will stand regardless of the
lack of calling for bids.
It may be
voided, however, at the instance of
any party, excepting the officers inter-
ested therein. This may be stretching
a point for the reason that the statute
requiring a request for bids seems
mandatory unless an emergency may
-exist, and I can see in a case like the
one suggested it might be considered
an emergency. In any event, it might
be well said that the commissioners
have gone to the limit in the making
of the Machine Lease Agreement men-
tioned.
2. Is it legal for the county to rent
this machinery?
From the statutes quoted under the
-answer to your first question, you will
note that it is legal for the county to
rent the said machinery.
The board
Df county commissioners may exercise
powers not specifically g-ranted, if they
are necessarily implied from
those
which are granted, and from the neces-
sity of proper management of the coun-
ty's business we are assuming that the
commissioners in the exercise of this
discretion rented this machinery, which,
in our opinion. is within their power.
This seems to be the general law.
Arnold et al. v. Custer County et
al.. 33 Mont. 130, 143;
15 C. J. 457, 459.
3. Is it legal and proper for the
members of the board of county com-
missioners to rent this said machine as
an agent of the machinery company
and for him to collect rental money
for the said machine and make pay-
ments direct to the machinery com-
pany?
Section 4604 of the Revised Codes of
Montana, 1935, reads as follows:
"No member of the board must be
interested, directly or indirectly, in
any property purchased for the use of
the county, nor in any purchase or
sale of property belonging to the
county, nor in any contract made by
the board or other person on behalf
of the county, for the erection of
public buildings, the opening or im-
provement of roads, or the building
of bridges, or the purchasing of sup-
plies, or for any other purpose."
Sections 444 and 445 read as follows:
"Members of the legislative assem-
bly, state, county, city, town, or town-
ship officers, must not be interested
in any contract made by them in their
official capacity, or by any body or
board of which they are members.
State, county, town, township and
city officers must not be purch~sers
at any sale, nor vendors at any pur-
chase made by them, in their official
capacity."
You will note from the reading of
the above sections that any commis-
sioner acting as an agent, as in the
case you cite, goes beyond the scope
of his authority.
Public policy de-
mands that a public officer cannot be
permitted to place himself in a situa-
tion where his personal interest will
conflict with faithful performance of
his duty.
It matters not how fair a
contract may be, the law will not suffer
him to occupy a position so equivocal
and so frought with temptation.
Power v. May (Cal.) 46 Pac. 6;
Berka v. 'vVoodward (Cal.) 57 Pac
777.
.
Our Sections 444 and 445 are ver-
batim with California Codes Sections
920 and 921.
'
There are several peculiar features
connected with the case you present
and it is quite possible we do not hav~
all the facts.
In the first place the
lease agreement is executed October 7,
1935; nearly two years have passed;
payments have been made and the
lessee has been in possession of the
property; and the commissioners of
this particular county have gone to
152
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
quite some length and paid quite some
sum of money, or at least the machin-
ery company has received quite some
sum of money.
So, to rule differently
might be working a hardship on the
county. We feel that the county com-
missioners construed this agreement as
a rental agreement, and since the re-
quirement of rental is $342.16 per
month, they, undoubtedly, did not con-
sider the necessity for bids since the
amount is less than $1000.
That may
have been the cause of their action.
We do feel that Mr. Kensler, if he
was a commissioner at the time of the
execution of the contract, which is not
a matter of record, had no right to
represent the machinery company as
their agent and comes within the pro-
visions of Sections 444. 445 and 4606.
I t is the opinion of this office, further,
that whatever payments had been made
for the rental of this machinery should
have been paid to the county treasurer
and distributed as provided for by
Section 4465.27, above.