Attorney General Opinions and Advisory Letters
Decision Information
Kiddy v. Board of County Comm'rs - cited by 93 documents
State v. Aragon - cited by 137 documents
Decision Content
Opinion No. 57-01
January 3, 1957
TO: Mr. Abner Schreiber, Assistant District Attorney, First Judicial District, Los Alamos, New Mexico
QUESTIONS
QUESTIONS
1. Under the provisions of Section 11-6-1, N.M.S.A., 1953, where the county commissioners authorize any purchases, disbursements, or expenditures of sums of money, is the required action of the county clerk in such matters merely ministerial?
2. If the county clerk refuses to attest a warrant does this legally preclude payment of an obligation approved by the Board of county commissioners?
CONCLUSION
1. No.
2. Yes, unless the action of the county clerk is arbitrary.
OPINION
ANALYSIS
The important part of Section 11-6-1 N.M.S.A., 1953 Compilation reads as follows:
"It shall be unlawful for the board of county commissioners, the county clerk, or any other county official authorized to make purchases to disburse, expend or obligate any sum in excess of fifty per centum (50%) of the approved budget for the fiscal year during which the terms of office of any such official will expire; . . ."
At first glance it would appear that the duties of the county clerk with reference to disbursements or expenditures by the county commissioners is merely ministerial and there is nothing other than the act of signing of his name which is required of the clerk. The statutes which cover the clerk's duties in this matter are as follows:
Section 15-39-5 N.M.S.A. 1953:
". . . Fourth. To sign all orders issued by the board for the payment of money and to record in a book to be provided for that purpose the receipts of the county treasurer of the receipts and expenditures of the county . . . ."
Section 15-39-7 N.M.S.A. 1953:
"Such clerk shall not sign or issue any county order unless ordered by the board of commissioners authorizing the same; and every such order shall be numbered, and the date, amount and number of the same and the name of the person to whom it is issued shall be entered in a book kept by him in his office for that purpose."
Section 15-44-4 N.M.S.A. 1953:
"County orders shall be signed by the chairman and attested by the county clerk, and shall specify the nature of the claim of service for which they were issued, and the money shall be paid from the County Treasurer on such orders and not otherwise."
From the wording of these statutes it would appear that the county clerk is merely a ministerial officer, and when the county commissioners approve an account, the clerk must sign the warrant.
However, it seems that the Legislature by the enactment of Sections 11-6-1 through 11-6-5, N.M.S.A., 1953, changed the duty of the clerk from that of being merely ministerial. It is to be noted that only the county commissioners and the county clerk are specifically mentioned in Section 11-6-1. All the other county officials are covered by a blanket provision. Not even is the county treasurer specifically mentioned when actually it is this officer in the strict sense who expends the money.
The county commissioners are really responsible for all the expenditures of the county money, and any time money is spent or obligated contra to this section upon their approval, there would be a violation. It is our opinion that the Legislature did not intend to rest the responsibility alone with the county commissioners. It meant to place an additional responsibility upon the county clerk in cases of the disbursements and expenditures of county funds, namely, the county clerk would be responsible for participating in such prohibited expenditures or disbursements by signing such warrants.
Attention is called to a similar situation in the case of State vs. Aragon, 55 N.M. 423, 234 P. 2d 358, wherein a defense was interposed to the illegal expenditures of public funds under another statute that the defendant had acted only as secretary of a school board and thus had not actually disbursed the funds. Justice McGhee reviewed the New Mexico statutes on disbursements of public funds, including § 11-6-1, and pointed out that the "mere approval of bills and vouchers and the issuance of warrants was a disbursement of public funds." This is a reasonable construction of this section inasmuch as the county clerk has in that office all the records of the county so far as expenditures are concerned. (§ 15-39-5) The county clerk should not be allowed to claim that with reference to accounts his action is ministerial and thus allow public funds to be illegally spent. The purpose of the act was to prevent the spending of county funds in such way that the incoming county officials would be without operating money. One with knowledge of the status of county expenditures cannot stand by and sign warrants which violate this section. The law certainly would not tolerate such absurd result.
Attention is further called to a portion of Section 11-6-5, which reads as follows:
". . . Any official whose duty it is to allow claims and issue warrants therefor, who issues warrants or evidences of indebtedness contrary to the provisions of this act shall be liable to their respective counties or municipalities for such violations and recovery may be made against the bondsmen of such official."
We are convinced that the county clerk is part of the issuing machinery for warrants. In other words the county clerk in view of these provisions has more than a name signing function with reference to the issuing of county warrants. The county clerk must be sure that § 11-6-1, is not violated before affixing his signature to the warrant. In view of this latter § 11-6-5, above quoted, and the implications of State vs. Aragon, supra, we do not believe that a county clerk could avoid his responsibility for having signed a warrant upon the order of the county commissioners if it could be shown that such signature was responsible for the unauthorized expenditures or disbursements of public funds prohibited by § 11-6-1.
We think another approach to this problem may offer an indication of the answer to these questions. Could a successful mandamus suit be maintained to compel a county clerk to carry out his functions with reference to claims approved by the county commissioners, even where he raised the violation of § 11-6-1 as reason for failure to act? We believe that proof of a violation of § 11-6-1 by the county clerk would be a complete defense to a mandamus proceedings. (55 C.J.S., Mandamus, Section 10C, page 35) Kiddy vs. Board of County Commissioners of Eddy County, 57 N.M. 145, 255 P. 2d 678. See also this case for a discussion of the question of ministerial duty. In other words a public official cannot be compelled to act in such a manner that the law is violated. Certainly to this extent it is imperative that the county clerk determine that the law is not violated by his action. If the county clerk blindly signed warrants where the records of his office showed that such warrants violated § 11-6-1, such clerk would also violate this statute.
Generally the act of attestation is merely the witnessing of the execution of a document or the witnessing of the signature of another. 7 C.J.S., Attestation, page 692. However, under § 15-44-4, it seems that this attestation by the clerk is absolutely required for a valid warrant.
The only way that a claim against this county can be paid is by an order (warrant) issued in conformity with this section by its own terms. It is our opinion that the failure of the county clerk to sign the warrant would prevent the payment of the claim.
1956
56-6565
56-6564
56-6563
56-6562
56-6561
56-6560
56-6559
56-6558
56-6557
56-6556
56-6555
56-6553
56-6552
56-6554
56-6551
56-6550
56-6549
56-6548
56-6547
56-6546
56-6545
56-6544
56-6543
56-6542
56-6541
56-6540
56-6539
56-6538
56-6537
56-6536
56-6535
56-6534
56-6533
56-6532
56-6531
56-6530
56-6529
56-6528
56-6527
56-6526
56-6525
56-6524
56-6523
56-6522
56-6521
56-6520
56-6519
56-6518
56-6517
56-6516
56-6515
56-6514
56-6513
56-6512
56-6511
56-6510
56-6509
56-6508
56-6507
56-6506
56-6505
56-6504
56-6503
56-6502
56-6501
56-6500
56-6498
56-6497
56-6496
56-6499
56-6495
56-6494
56-6493
56-6492
56-6491
56-6490
56-6489
56-6488
56-6487
56-6486
56-6485
56-6484
56-6483
56-6482
56-6481
56-6480
56-6479
56-6478
56-6477
56-6476
56-6475
56-6474
56-6473
56-6472
56-6471
56-6470
56-6469
56-6468
56-6467
56-6466
56-6465
56-6464
56-6463
56-6462
56-6461
56-6460
56-6459
56-6458
56-6457
56-6456
56-6455
56-6454
56-6453
56-6452
56-6451
56-6450
56-6449
56-6448
56-6447
56-6446
56-6445
56-6444
56-6443
56-6442
56-6439
56-6441
56-6440
56-6438
56-6437
56-6436
56-6435
56-6434
56-6433
56-6432
56-6431
56-6430
56-6429
56-6428
56-6427
56-6426
56-6425
56-6424
56-6423
56-6422
56-6421
56-6420
56-6419
56-6418
56-6417
56-6416
56-6415
56-6414
56-6413
56-6412
56-6411
56-6410
56-6409
56-6408
56-6407
56-6406
56-6405
56-6404
56-6403
56-6402
56-6401
56-6400
56-6399
56-6398
56-6397
56-6396
56-6395
56-6394
56-6393
56-6392
56-6391
56-6390
56-6389
56-6387
56-6388
56-6386
56-6385
56-6384
56-6383
56-6382
56-6381
56-6380
56-6379
56-6378
56-6377
56-6376
56-6375
56-6374
56-6373
56-6372
56-6371
56-6370
56-6369
56-6368
56-6367
56-6366
56-6365
56-6364
56-6363
56-6362
56-6361
56-6360
56-6359
56-6358
56-6357
56-6356
56-6355
56-6354
56-6353
56-6352
56-6351
56-6350
56-6349
56-6348
56-6347
56-6346