Could a Texas deputy sheriff own an auto garage that repaired county patrol vehicles during his off-duty hours?

Texas AG Opinion JM-450: Deputy Sheriff Repairing County Vehicles

Plain-English summary

A deputy sheriff owned an automobile garage and repaired sheriff's office patrol vehicles during off-duty hours. Completed repair bills were submitted to the commissioners court for approval, generally without requesting bids. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0450.pdf

JM-450 concluded that article 988b did not apply because the deputy was not a member of the county's governing body and had no legal authority to vote on, decide, or make the county's repair contract. The commissioners court was the county's general contracting agency. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0450.pdf

The opinion separately noted that the County Purchasing Act imposed competitive-bidding requirements on covered county purchases above its statutory threshold. Thus, the conflict statute did not prohibit the arrangement, but purchasing law still had to be considered. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0450.pdf

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Why did article 988b not apply to the deputy?

The statute applied when a local official had authority to participate in a vote or decision affecting a business in which the official had a substantial interest. JM-450 said the deputy had no such contracting or voting authority. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0450.pdf

Who had authority to bind the county to the repair contract?

The commissioners court. The opinion described it as the county's general business and contracting agency unless a statute provided otherwise. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0450.pdf

Did the opinion say the county could ignore bidding rules?

No. JM-450 flagged the County Purchasing Act and its criminal penalties as separate issues that could govern the repair purchases. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0450.pdf

Background and statutory framework

Article 988b regulated a local official's participation in government votes or decisions affecting a business in which the official had a substantial interest. Because a deputy sheriff could not contract for the county or vote on county business, the described private garage work fell outside that provision. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0450.pdf

The 1985 County Purchasing Act separately governed county purchases of services, equipment, goods, and other personal property above the amount stated in the opinion. JM-450 did not decide whether a particular repair bill violated that act. Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0450.pdf

Citations and references

• article 988b, V.T.C.S.
• article 2368a.5, V.T.C.S.
• articles 2368a.3 and 2368a.4, V.T.C.S.
• Anderson v. Wood, 152 S.W.2d 1084, 1085 (Tex. 1941)

Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0450.pdf

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0450
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1986/jm0450.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF via OCR. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

The Attorney General of Texas

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General

March 13, 1986

Honorable James A. Rasmussen
Wichita County Attorney
P.O. Box 8025
Wichita Falls, Texas 76307

Opinion No. JM-450

Re: Whether article 988b, V.T.C.S., applies to a local public official's activities in his private capacity as the owner of an automobile garage

Dear Mr. Rasmussen:

You inquire whether article 988b, V.T.C.S., which relates to conflicts of interest of local public officials, applies to a deputy sheriff who, in his private capacity, owns and operates an automobile garage during his off-duty hours and repairs patrol vehicles of the sheriff's office. You advise us that, generally, bids are not requested for the automobile repairs and a bill for completed repairs is presented to the commissioners court for its approval. It is our opinion that article 988b does not apply to a deputy sheriff's contracts with his county.

The prohibitions provided by article 988b apply to an official who has authority to participate for his governmental entity in a vote or decision that affects a business in which the official has a substantial interest. Secs. 3(a)(1), 4, 5, 6. See Attorney General Opinion JM-270 (1984).

The commissioners court is the general business and contracting agency of a county, and it alone has authority to make contracts binding on the county, unless otherwise specifically provided by statute. Anderson v. Wood, 152 S.W.2d 1084, 1085 (Tex. 1941). See Attorney General Opinions JM-270, JM-157 (1984). A deputy sheriff is not a member of the county's governing body and cannot contract for the county or vote on a matter pertaining to county business. He does not have legal authority to participate in a vote or decision involving a county's contract for the repair of the vehicles of the sheriff's office. See Attorney General Opinions JM-310 (1985); JM-270 (1984); MW-236 (1980).

While we conclude that the activity of a deputy sheriff which you describe would not result in a violation of article 988b, we also suggest other aspects of such activity that may warrant your attention. The County Purchasing Act, enacted by the Sixty-ninth Legislature in 1985, now provides the basic competitive bidding requirements for a county's purchase of services, equipment, goods, or other personal property under a contract that requires an expenditure in excess of $5,000. See V.T.C.S. art. 2368a.5. Section 14 of that act provides criminal penalties. See also V.T.C.S. art. 2368a.3; art. 2368a.4, § 1.

SUMMARY

Article 988b, V.T.C.S., does not prohibit a deputy sheriff from contracting with the county through the commissioners court for services or materials which are furnished in his private capacity.

JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas

JACK HIGHTOWER
First Assistant Attorney General

MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General

ROBERT GRAY
Special Assistant Attorney General

RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Nancy Sutton
Assistant Attorney General