Help

Mr. Kent Crider

Office of the Attorney GeneralAugust 20, 2010

2010 WL 3562061 (Miss.A.G.)
Office of the Attorney General
State of Mississippi
*1 Opinion No. 2010-00463
*1 August 20, 2010

Re: Municipal appointments and payment of claims

 
*1 Mr. Kent Crider
*1 Alderman, City of Lumberton
*1 1007 West Main
*1 Lumberton, MS 39455
Dear Mr. Crider:
*1 Attorney General Jim Hood has received your request for an opinion and has assigned it to me for research and response.
 
Issues Presented
 
*1 You inquire as to the authority of a mayor to pay a claim without board approval. Specifically, you ask the following:
*1 I am addressing this question to you to see if any wrong doing has been done and to get an official opinion. Our city Building Inspector was not reappointed by the board and when we tried to replace him, it was vetoed by the mayor so he has continued to serve because he has not been replaced. He was called by the Mayor to give citations for violations to the comprehensive plan. The board had discussed with our attorney and he indicated he did not see any violations but he would need more time to look at it. No vote was ever taken by the board as to whether or not there was a code violation. The code enforcer came down and wrote citations at the orders of the Mayor. His bill for this inspection was given to the clerk too late to be put on the docket for July. The clerk said the Mayor told her to write a check and pay him though the Board had never voted to pay him and his pay had always been entered on the unpaid claims. My question is does the Mayor have the authority to pay this person without board approval?
 
Response
 
*1 Pursuant to Section 7-5-25, opinions of the Attorney General are issued on questions of law for the future guidance of those officials entitled to receive them. An Attorney General's opinion can neither validate nor invalidate past action of an officer or agency. Therefore, we must decline to respond to your request with an official opinion of this office. However, we provide the following information as future guidance.
*1 There is no authority for a mayor to pay a claim that has not been properly approved by the board of aldermen. To do so may subject the mayor to the sanctions imposed by Section 21-39-17.
 
Applicable Law and Discussion
 
*1 All lawful claims owed by the municipality must be examined and approved for payment by the board of aldermen. MS AG Op., Bailey (October 12, 2007). Pursuant to Section 21-39-13, the clerk is only authorized to draw warrants for claims and accounts that have been allowed and approved by the municipal governing authorities. See Section 21-39-13; MS AG Op., Henderson (August 9, 1996). In response to your request concerning the payment of a claim that has not been lawfully approved, Section 21-39-17 provides:
*1 All expenditures of money from the treasury of any municipality for any purpose whatsoever shall be in pursuance of the allowance of a claim as hereinbefore specified in Section 21-39-9, or in pursuance of a specific appropriation made by order, which such appropriation shall be specific as to each separate expenditure in so far as may be practical. If the mayor, clerk, or any other person shall willfully or feloniously issue, sign or attest any warrant for the expenditure of money from the municipal treasury when such expenditure is not authorized by an order entered on the minutes of such municipality, then such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine or not more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. In addition such person shall upon conviction, automatically be removed from office. (Emphasis added)
*2 Not only is there no statutory authority for the mayor to pay a claim that has not been properly approved, he may be subject to a misdemeanor conviction, punishable by a fine or imprisonment or both and, upon conviction, shall be automatically removed from office. In addition, the clerk would be subject to the same sanctions imposed by Section 21-39-17 for issuing a warrant for an expenditure that has not been properly approved.
*2 If our office can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
*2 Jim Hood
*2 Attorney General
*2 By: Leigh Triche Janous
*2 Special Assistant Attorney General
2010 WL 3562061 (Miss.A.G.)
End of Document