Mississippi Advisory Opinions May 23, 2008: No. 2008-00197 (May 23, 2008)
Collection: Mississippi Attorney General Opinions
Docket: No. 2008-00197
Date: May 23, 2008
Advisory Opinion Text
No. 2008-00197.
DOCK: 2008-00197
Dear Mr. Miller:
Attorney General Jim Hood has received your request for an official opinion and has assigned it to me for research and reply.
Whether a member of a board of supervisors in a county operating under the unit system of government would be prohibited from personally operating county equipment purchased with general funds on a project unrelated to road construction or maintenance? For example, could a member of the board of supervisors lawfully operate a lawn mower purchased with general funds at a county-owned community recreation center?
I understood from my telephone conversation with you that the county equipment in question is a lawn mower purchased with general funds for the recreation department.
It is the opinion of this office that individual members of the Forrest County Board of Supervisors are not authorized to personally operate county equipment which does not directly relate to the scope of duties for boards of supervisors.
The board of supervisors ("board") is the governing authority of a county. The role of the board is overall policymaking. (See Miss. Const. Art. 6, Section 170; Miss. Code Ann. Sections 19-3-40(1); 19-3-41(1)). The five members constitute the board. (See Miss. Const. Art. 6, Section 170). See also Sections 19-2-1 et seq. of the Miss. Code.
In an opinion issued to Hon. Phil Bryant dated November 7, 1998, as cited in your letter, we opined that a member of the board of supervisors in a county operating under the countywide system of road administration may not physically operate county road equipment. We opined that the legislative intent in establishing the countywide system of road administration was to establish "a system wherein the boards of supervisors exercise overall policy making power...." We further opined that "an active role as a worker on the road crew by an individual supervisor would be inimical to this statutory scheme and is not authorized under it." MS AG Op., Bryant (Nov. 7, 1998).
Likewise, we are of the opinion that individual supervisors in a unit system county are not authorized to assume active roles as workers in the county's various departments. The above constitutional and statutory provisions make it clear that boards of supervisors exercise overall policymaking authority for counties. While it is admirable for individual members of boards of supervisors to volunteer to perform tasks normally performed by county workers, we are of the opinion that to do so exceeds the scope of the county supervisor's duties. In a follow-up telephone conversation, you indicated that the county equipment in question is a lawn mower purchased with general funds for the recreation department. It is our opinion that the duties of members of boards of supervisors do not include personally operating county equipment used by county workers for the maintenance of county grounds. Members of county boards of supervisors are elected to perform the duties of supervisors and not that of county workers. Thus, it is the opinion of this office that individual members of the Forrest County Board of Supervisors have no authority to personally operate county equipment which does not directly relate to the scope of duties for boards of supervisors.
Accordingly, it is the opinion of this office that individual members of the Forrest County Board of Supervisors have no authority to personally operate county equipment which does not directly relate to the scope of duties for boards of supervisors.
Please feel free to contact our office if we may be of further assistance.
Very truly yours,
JIM HOOD, ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: Margarette L. Meeks
Special Assistant Attorney General