STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 5778

September 11, 1980

PUBLIC OFFICERS:

Acceptance of reward

REWARDS:

Acceptance by public officer

TOWNSHIPS:

Duties of supervisor

A charter township supervisor may not accept a reward for performing a service which he or she is already duty bound to perform.

Honorable Jerome T. Hart

State Senator

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan 48909

You have requested my opinion upon the following question:

It is a general rule of law in this country that it is contrary to public policy for public officers to accept rewards for the performance of duties or services which it was their duty to perform, and this rule has been held to apply although the officer rendered his or her service when he or she was off duty. 67 Am Jur 2d, Rewards, Sec. 16, p 12; 77 CJS, Rewards, Sec. 36, p 381; OAG, 1910, p 143 (December 10, 1909). See also Davis v Matthews, 361 F 2d 899 (CA 4, 1966).

The only Michigan case dealing with the issue is Genesee County v Pailthorpe, 246 Mich 356; 224 NW 418 (1929), where a bill in interpleader was brought to determine the right to a reward, and the Court noted that two of the claimants to the reward were law enforcement officers who, having been advised that they were not entitled to share in the reward, made no claim, and their defaults were properly entered.

In charter townships, supervisors have the duty, inter alia, 'to see that all laws and township ordinances are enforced.' 1947 PA 359, Sec. 10; MCLA 42.10; MSA 5.46(10). The willful destruction of utility property is a felony under the state penal code, 1938 PA 328, Sec. 383a; MCLA 750.383a; MSA 28.615(1).

Inasmuch as charter township supervisors have the duty to see that all laws and township ordinances are enforced, it is my opinion that such an officer would be within the general rule of law that precludes acceptance of a reward for performing a service which he or she is already duty bound to perform. It is not necessary to determine whether a township supervisor is a law enforcement officer, because the rule of law refers to public officers generally, and is not confined to law enforcement officers.

Since public policy precludes a public official from accepting a reward for the performance of a public duty, the public policy would not be observed if the reward were to be accepted by the public officer and then paid by him or her to his or her municipality. When a public officer accepts a reward for the performance of a public duty, and if there is no statutory provision ^(a1) for acceptance by the municipality, the reward money should be returned by the public officer to the person who offered and paid it, and may not be diverted to the municipality employing the public officer.

It is my opinion, therefore, that a charter township supervisor may not accept a reward for performance of a service which he or she is duty bound to perform.

Frank J. Kelley