HomeMy WebLinkAbout660265.tiff4
C-LORADO STATE ASS ,-�e�
`vim. �IATf� -Lea '' 0--ort-so-v
SUPS M.
IMMOINITOS
isards
Cred
tit lin Peet
Tatars holds
a� herds
II..a.r Ps Prods
etcaw •
�
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
April 19, 1986
Re. Thames A. Richardson
Canty Attorney, Weld County
92_4 Ninth Avenue (Harvard Bldg.)
Greeley, Colorado
SUlga
DOa MINNU RDIRr
MAJOSTKI WRNS
14RVCR. COLORADO 00604
IPS Sal
J. ,.e •eNra.at
Li• Owls Dee
Arms Illann
•
Dear *. Richardson:
You have asked for an opinion on the following question:
"Is it proper for the County of Weld to
pay the Blue Cross premiums for elected
officials? Some of the elected officials
feel that it is a form of raising the
salary of elected officials and, therefore,
an illegal expenditure of funds."
In 1931 the County Attorneys of Logan and Washington
Cooties submitted to the Attorney General a queetioa as to
whether or not the county could pay now-Valf of the premiums
for the employees of those counties for group insurance, sever-
ing life, benefits and the Attemmey Genes0ls
b7.dpiaien dated April 27, 1951, concluded that while there was
authority to the contrary, that under Chapter 45, Sec. 23 (5)
1933 CIA, each an expenditure would be proper.
That statute is now found in '63 CRS, 36-1-7 (6).
The question of paying the premiums or any part of the
It premiums fur elected officials was net asked for nor answered.
r an Act -lismewar, in the Session Laws of Colorado for 1951
Relating to the Regulation of Sickness and
�Ace idaw�•
C'4 oo
660265
Richardson
Page 2
4/19/66
Insurance the pertinent provisions of which now appear in CRS
1963, 72-10-16, wherein an employer is defined as:
"The term 'Employer' as used in this article
may be deemed to include any municipal or
governmental corporation, unit, agency or
department thereof and the proper officers,
as such, of any unincorporated municipality
or department thereof as well as private
individuals, partnerships and corporations."
Under the last cited statute there is no question in my mind
but that the legislature intended to include with the employees
*Welected officials. We must then consider whether or not
this statute violates Art. 5, Sec. 28 of the Colorado Consti-
tution which forbids extra compensation to any public officer,
servant, or employee, agent or contractor after services have
been rendered or contract made. However, the Board of County
Commissioners, being an administrative body, must assume that
any act passed by the legislature is constitutional.
The State of California had this under consideration in'
the case of Paola* vs Standard Accident Insurance Co., 106 Pat 2nd
923 and held that the expenditure of money was for a public and not
a private purpose in paying the premiums for state employees or
subdivisions of the state.
Likewise, in State of Tennessee Ex Re] Frank Thompson.
Attorney General vs the City of Memphis, 251 SW'46, it was held
that a city having power to increase wages of its employees may
take out group insurance for their benefit; if it will receive
better services by so doing, without violating a constitutional
provision forbidding the appropriation of public funds for private
purposes and consequently that the payment by a city from its
water department funds of premiums on group insurance for the
Mr. Richardson
Page 3
4/19/66
employees of that department was not illegal but was an expendi-
ture for a public purpose.
The oft cited case in our neighboring state of New Mexico,
Nohl vs The Board of Education, 199 Pac 373, the question was
whether The Board of Education could use school funds for the
purpose of carrying group insurance for school teachers and
employees where the statute gave the Board authority, inter alia:
"To defray all expenses connected with
the proper conduct of the public schools
and their respective districts."
The Court held there that:
This expenditure is certainly desirable
and conducive to the proper conduct of
the public schools. School funds are now
being spent in all school districts of the
state, and in many, if not all, of the other
states, for purposes and objects unquestion-
ably proper gauged by our advancing civili-
zation , which a quarter of a century ago
would jute been considered highly improper."****
It is, therefore, my opinion that the payment of premiums
for this form of insurance during the term of an elected official
might be questionable. However, if it was in effect at the time
he took office, I think it could be argued that it was a proper
expenditure, as such expenditure, in my opinion, would be in the
public interest.
Respectfully+-submitte9
_._ .<FfC z
J. Fred Schneider
JFS:e
cc: Executive Committee; Colorado Information; Attorney General
Hello