Texas Attorney General Opinion: DM-76 Page: 2 of 4
4 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Honorable Romero Molina - Page 2
governed not by the nepotism law but by a 1983 enactment that governs contracts
between a local governmental body and business entities in which a member of the
governmental body or certain relatives of a member of the governmental body have
a financial interest Acts 1983, 68th Leg., ch. 640, at 4079 (initially codified as
V.T.C&S. article 988b; recodified in 1987 as chapter 171 of the Local Government
Code) (hereinafter chapter 171). The opinion went on to say that the
commissioners court had not violated the nepotism law because "that statute no
longer controls county contracts with independent contractors." Although the
opinion was correct in concluding that chapter 171 applied to the contract in
question, the suggestion in the opinion that the 1983 enactment of the conflict-of-
interest law somehow altered the scope of the nepotism law and thereby overruled
Attorney General Opinion JM-45 was, we conclude, incorrect.
Conflict-of-interest rules existed in the common law for a considerable time
before chapter 171 was adopted. See, e.g, Meyers v. Walker, 276 S.W. 305 (Tex. Civ.
App.-Eastland 1925, no writ); Attorney General Opinion JM-424 (1986). The
enactment of chapter 171 made some changes in the common-law conflict-of-
interest rules. Unlike the common-law conflict-of-interest rules, the statutory
scheme imputes to a member of a governmental body certain financial interests of
his relatives within the first degree of consanguinity.' It thus applies to certain
contracts in which a public officer's relatives have a financial interest that before the
adoption of chapter 171 would have been within neither the nepotism statute nor
the common-law conflict-of-interest rules. Chapter 171 did not, as Attorney
General Opinion JM-492 suggests, make changes that affected the scope of the
nepotism statute. In suggesting that it did, Attorney General Opinion JM-492 erred
in focusing on the fact that the contract at issue was with an independent contractor.
To determine whether the nepotism law applied, Attorney General Opinion JM-492
should have considered whether the independent contractor was a "person" within
the nepotism statute, since the nepotism law applies to the hiring of natural persons.
See Lewis v. HllCboro RoleMil Ca, 23 S.W. 338 (Tex. Civ. App. 1893, no writ)
(judge not disqualified under former V.T.CS. article 1138, now Government Code
section 21.005, to try suit when his brother-in-law is stockholder and president of
plaintiff corporation). Thus, the nepotism law applies whenever a governmental
body hires a natural person, whether as an employee or as an independent
tA more sipificat ehapo is that under the new law, a conflict of interest does not necessarily
prevent a gove mental body from ctering into a contract. Under the common law, a contract was
void if there was a conflict of interest.p. 380
(DM-76)
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: DM-76, text, January 17, 1992; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth273885/m1/2/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.