Laserfiche WebLink
X25 <br />particular trucks that.were purchased.at considerably less than the list price because <br />the same had been slightly used and had been repossessed by the county from the pur- <br />chasers who has been unable to.make their payments; and I cannot think frommy investi- <br />gation but that this was another oase in which the officials of the county are to be <br />commended rather than criticized , and I think that the purchase of these Prucks was also <br />authorized under the provisions of Section 10688 of the Laws of 1925. <br />I also call your attention to Chapter 11553 of the Laws of Florida Extraordinar <br />ftaalon 192% which is in praabtIcaljy .tbe -.same language as Chapter 106889 and which authr <br />orizes the Board to construct roads and bridges in the county out of the general county <br />funds, either by letting said.work by contract or by employing labor by the day or month <br />and providing necessary machinery; teams and equipment without letting said work by con- <br />tract, and this, in my opinioa'authorizes the purchase of the two automobiles as referred <br />s to in the report of the investigating committee as being purchased out of general county <br />funds <br />7. The seventh and concluding paragraph of the report relates to the purchasing <br />of supplies from meihbers of the Board. There is no question but what the statute quoted <br />by the investigating committee makes it illegal for state and county boards to purchase <br />supplies from any member of the Board or from any corporation in which any member of the <br />Board is interested. I have been attorney for the Board of County Commissioners since tY <br />creation of Indian River County and so far as I know there has Never been any action <br />taken by the Board authorizing or providing for the purchase of supplies by the Board frc <br />any member of the Board or from any corporation in which such member was interested. <br />I understand that the county engineer and perhaps some other subordinate employees or, <br />officials of the county have purchased supplies from Redstone Lumber & Supply Company, <br />a corporation of which John H. Atkin; one of the members of the Board, is a stockholder, <br />but ethe question of liability of members of the Board for the purchase of such supplies <br />must be discussed and determined from two angles, that is, from a criminal standpoint an.; <br />from a civil standpoint. It is my opinion that the criminal statutes have not been vio- <br />lated and would not be violated unless some affirmative action on the part of the Board <br />itself was taken providing for the purchase of such supplies and for the payment of <br />s supplies so purchased; and that unless such affirmative action was taken by the Board <br />s <br />for the purchase of supplies that the purchase of incidentals from time to time by sub- <br />ordinate employees of the Board would not constitute a violation of the criminal pro- <br />vision of the statutes. However; if my interpretation of this is wrong, each and every <br />member of the past and present Board would be guilty of violation of this section, and <br />it is my opinion that no one member could be vonvicted for violating Section 7472 be- <br />cause this is an inhibition against the Board as a whole and the Board as a whole are <br />those members on it not voting against such a purchase and would have to be indict6dd4Ud.' <br />convicted as a whole, in my opinion. <br />The other question involved would be the vivil liability of the members of the <br />Board for purchasing supplies; which was considered by the Supreme Court of Florida in <br />N <br />the case of Lainbe t vs Burrs 38 :lou. 711; referred to by the investigating committee in <br />I its report. The committee states that its understanding of that -decision is that the <br />Supreme Court therein held that any member of a Board who votes in favor of paying any <br />bill for materials or supplies -purchased from a member or from a corporation in which <br />he is interested is liable to the county for the sum so paid. I do not get any such <br />impression from the holding of the Supreme Court in the case of Lainha.rt vs Burr, but <br />on the contrary it seems to me that the Supreme Court very clearly therein held that <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />