Can a Mississippi county employee use the county work vehicle to drive to meetings and business of a separate compensated state board position?

Plain-English summary

Larry Johnson, the Director of the Leflore County Civic Center, also serves as the Leflore County elected member of the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee District Board (a compensated position). His county employer issues him a county-owned vehicle for the civic center job. He asked whether he could use that county vehicle to travel to Levee Board business.

The AG said no. Public employees cannot use work vehicles for private or personal use. Serving on the Levee Board is "entirely separate and distinct" from his county employment, and because the Levee Board position is compensated, using the county vehicle for that purpose benefits him personally. Article IV, Section 66 of the Mississippi Constitution forbids that kind of donation of public resources to a private benefit. The AG cited two prior opinions on the same point: Evans-Bass (May 13, 2020) on county vehicles and Weaver (Sept. 22, 2008) (county employee's personal use of "a county vehicle is an impermissible donation").

The opinion noted one explicit statutory exception: Section 17-25-11 lets law enforcement officers use their official vehicles while performing private security duties under certain circumstances. That exception is narrow and does not apply here.

The AG also flagged that whether the dual service raises an ethics issue under Mississippi's Ethics in Government Laws (Sections 25-4-101 et seq.) is for the Mississippi Ethics Commission to address.

What this means for you

For county employees holding a separate compensated office

The opinion holds that a county employee cannot use a county-issued work vehicle for business travel associated with a separately elected, compensated position on a state board. The AG found no statutory authority excepting that use, and because the board position is compensated, using the county vehicle for it "benefits you personally," which the AG treats as an impermissible donation under Article IV, Section 66.

For county administrators and county attorneys

The opinion holds that the expenditure of county resources for personal or private use is prohibited, and it applies that rule to a county vehicle used for a separate compensated role. The AG grounded this in its prior opinions, Evans-Bass (May 13, 2020) and Weaver (Sept. 22, 2008), which held that a county employee's personal use of a county vehicle is an impermissible donation, together with Article IV, Section 66.

For Levee District Commissioners and other compensated board members

The opinion holds that serving on the Levee Board is "entirely separate and distinct" from the county employment that came with the vehicle, so the county vehicle cannot be used for board travel. It does not address what alternative transportation or reimbursement the board itself may provide.

On the ethics question

The opinion does not decide whether holding both positions, or using the county vehicle, is an ethical conflict of interest. The AG referred that question to the Mississippi Ethics Commission under Mississippi's Ethics in Government Laws, Sections 25-4-101 et seq.

Common questions

Can a county employee reimburse the county for gas and mileage and then use the vehicle for the outside role?
The opinion does not address or authorize that. It holds flatly that there is no statutory authority excepting a county employee's use of a county vehicle for travel associated with a separately compensated board position.

Does the analysis depend on the outside position being compensated?
The AG's reasoning expressly relied on the fact that the Levee Board position is compensated, so using the county vehicle "benefits you personally." The opinion did not address uncompensated outside roles.

Are there any exceptions to the no-personal-use rule?
The opinion identifies one express statutory exception, in a footnote: Section 17-25-11 permits law enforcement officers to use their official vehicles while performing private security duties under certain circumstances. The AG found no equivalent exception for outside board service.

Is this also an ethics violation under Section 25-4-101 et seq.?
The AG did not opine. It referred that question to the Mississippi Ethics Commission.

Background and statutory framework

Mississippi public employees are not authorized to use their work vehicles for private or personal use. The AG has applied this principle consistently to both municipal and county vehicles, citing Evans-Bass (May 13, 2020) and Weaver (Sept. 22, 2008).

Article IV, Section 66 of the Mississippi Constitution prohibits the legislature (and by extension, units of local government) from granting "extra compensation" or "any donation, gratuity or grant" of public funds. The classic application: a public employee using public assets for a private purpose receives an impermissible donation.

Compensated dual-office holding compounds the issue. The Levee Board commissioner role pays compensation under Laws 2002, Ch. 593, § 1. If the county vehicle is doing the work of getting the commissioner to those compensated meetings, the county is effectively subsidizing the commissioner's earning of that separate compensation. That is the impermissible-donation problem.

Section 17-25-11 carves out a narrow exception for law enforcement officers using official vehicles for private security duties. It is the only express statutory exception cited by the AG and does not apply here.

The dual-office ethics question (whether holding both positions is itself a conflict) is governed by Sections 25-4-101 et seq. (Ethics in Government Laws), enforced by the Mississippi Ethics Commission, not the AG.

Citations

• Miss. Code Ann. § 17-25-11 (law enforcement officer private security exception for use of official vehicle)
• Miss. Code Ann. §§ 25-4-101, et seq. (Mississippi Ethics in Government Laws)
• Miss. Const. art. IV, § 66 (no donation, gratuity, or grant of public funds)
• Laws 2002, Ch. 593, § 1 (compensation for Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee District commissioners)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/L.-Johnson-April-17-2025-Use-of-County-Vehicle-for-Travel-Associated-with-Levee-Board-Business.pdf

Original opinion text

April 17, 2025

The Honorable Larry Johnson
Commissioner, Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee District Board
Post Office Box 416
Greenwood, MS 38935
Re:

Use of County Vehicle for Travel Associated with Levee Board
Business

Dear Commissioner Johnson:
The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.
Background
According to your request, you are the Leflore County elected member on the Yazoo-Mississippi
Delta Levee District Board ("Board"), which is a compensated position. You are also employed as
the Director of the Leflore County Civic Center. The latter position affords you the use of a county-owned vehicle.
Question Presented
Is it a conflict of interest for a county employee to use a county-issued work vehicle for business
travel associated with an elected, compensated position on a separate state board?
Brief Response
Generally, the expenditure of county resources for personal or private use is prohibited by state
law. We find no statutory authority excepting a county employee's use of a county vehicle for
business travel associated with a separately elected, compensated position on a state board. As to
whether such use constitutes an ethical conflict of interest, we refer you to the Mississippi Ethics
Commission.

Applicable Law and Discussion
Generally, public employees are not authorized to use their work vehicles for private or personal
use.[1] At the local level, we have previously and consistently opined against the private or personal
use of both municipal and county vehicles. See MS AG Op., Evans-Bass (May 13, 2020); MS AG
Op., Weaver (Sept. 22, 2008).
Serving as Levee Board Commissioner is entirely separate and distinct from the county
employment for which you were provided a county vehicle. Further, you receive compensation for
the elected position, which means the use of the county vehicle benefits you personally. See Laws
2002, Ch. 593, § 1. A county employee's personal use of "a county vehicle is an impermissible
donation." MS AG Op., Weaver at *1; see also MISS. CONST. art. IV, § 66.
For further guidance on any potential conflicts under Mississippi's Ethics in Government Laws,
Mississippi Code Annotated Sections 25-4-101 et seq., we refer you to the Mississippi Ethics
Commission.
If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL
By:

/s/ Caleb A. Pracht
Caleb A. Pracht
Special Assistant Attorney General

[1] However, there is express statutory authority permitting law enforcement officers to use their
official vehicles while performing private security duties under certain circumstances. See Miss. Code
Ann. § 17-25-11.