The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 5515 July 18, 1979 COUNTIES: Discipline of county employees by county board of commissioners OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: Discipline of county employees by county board of commissioners TAXATION: Supervision and control over employees of equalization department The Director of the Department of Equalization of a county has supervision over employees of that department and the County Board of Commissioners may not discipline an employee of that department. Doyle A. Rowland Prosecuting Attorney Midland County Courthouse Midland, Michigan 48640 You have requested my opinion as to whether the board of county commissioners may discipline an employee of the equalization department without the consent of the equalization director. 1893 PA 206, Sec. 34(2), as amended: MCLA 211.34(2); MSA 7.52(2), establishes county equalization departments and provides: 'The board of commissioners of a county shall, . . . establish and maintain a department to survey assessments and assist the board of commissioners in the matter of equalization of assessments, and may employ therein such technical and clerical personnel as in its judgment are deemed necessary. The personnel of the department shall be under the direct supervision and control of a director of the tax or equalization department who may designate an employee of the department as his deputy. The director of the county tax or equalization department shall be appointed by the board of commissioners. . . .' [Emphasis added] This provision gives the director of the equalization department direct supervision and control over employees of the department. OAG, 1975-1976, No 5046, p 484 (June 10, 1976), held that a county board of commissioners has the power and authority to issue a personnel policy applicable to employees of all county departments subject to supervision of the board of commissioners. Although the county board of commissioners may issue a general personnel policy, it does not actually perform the day-to-day organizational housekeeping activities of the county. As stated by the Court of Appeals in Crain v Gibson, 73 Mich App 192, 204-205; 250 NW2d 792, 798 (1977), leave to appeal den 400 Mich 828 (1977): 'What is the business of the county board of commissioners? Apart from its legislative powers and specific administrative powers and duties imposed upon it by the Legislature, it has only such administrative powers as are necessary to accomplish its own organizational housekeeping and to enable it to attend to the details of performing its other duties. An example used by defendant's counsel in arguing clearly illustrates the distinction to be made. Noting that the board's Building and Grounds Committee must meet regularly to insure that the maintenance and repairs of county buildings and grounds are attended to and custodial work performed, it was argued that the committee members might personally perform such work and be compensated therefor. The argument fails to distinguish between county business and the business (or responsibility) of the county board of commissioners. It is the business of the county to have public buildings maintained and repaired. It is the business of the county board of commissioners to see that the necessary work is done. It is not the duty of the board, or of any individual member thereof, to do the work personally. . . .' [73 Mich App at pp 204-205; Emphasis added] It is therefore my opinion that the director of the department of equalization of a county has supervision over employees of that department and the county board of commissioners may not discipline an employee of that department. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General