STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Opinion No. 6234

July 10, 1984

INCOMPATIBILITY:

Office of trustee of a charter township and office of member of a board of education of a school district

The office of trustee of a charter township and the office of member of a board of education of a school district are not incompatible unless the charter township and the school district in question undertake negotiations for or enter into a contract with each other.

Honorable Harmon Cropsey

State Senator

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

You have requested my opinion whether a person may simultaneously occupy the elected offices of township trustee and a member of a board of education of a school district. The township and the school district in question are located in the same county and, to some extent, the township and school district cover the same geographical area.

A letter opinion addressed to Representative Kenneth J. DeBeaussaert, dated December 16, 1980, concluded that the offices of trustee of a general law township and a member of a board of education of a school district were incompatible under the provisions of 1978 PA 566; MCLA 15.181 et seq; MSA 15.1120(121) et seq. OAG, 1983-1984, No 6214, p 274 (April 3, 1984), held that the offices of township trustee of a general law township and superintendent of schools were incompatible under the same statute. However, each of those opinions involved an officer of a general law township that was in competition with the school district for the allocation of millage before the county tax allocation board. See, Const 1963, art 9, Sec. 6 and the Property Tax Limitation Act, 1933 PA 62; MCLA 211.201 et seq; MSA 7.61 et seq. Here, the township trustee is serving in a charter township whose maximum tax rate is provided for by statute rather than by the county tax allocation board. See, 1947 PA 359, Sec. 27; MCLA 42.27; MSA 5.46(27). Thus, the aforesaid two opinions, to the extent they relied upon the competition between the townships and school districts for millage allocated by the county tax allocation boards, are not applicable here.

1978 PA 566, supra, Sec. 1 provides, in pertinent part:

1978 PA 566, supra, Sec. 2 states:

As indicated in the December 16, 1980 letter opinion to Representative DeBeaussaert, there is no subordination or supervision between the office of a township trustee of a general law township and the office of member of a board of education of a school district. Nor is there any subordination or supervision between the office of township trustee of a charter township and the office of member of a board of education of a school district. Thus, the first and second criteria of incompatibility do not apply.

OAG, 1983-1984, No 6214, supra, cited the letter opinion addressed to Representative DeBeaussaert as it applied the first two statutory criteria of incompatibility and reached the same result thereunder. It also examined the third criteria of incompatibility, breach of duty of public office, and observed:

Presently, there are no contracts between the township and the school district in question. One example of a potential contractual relationship between the township and the school district that would render the two offices incompatible is an agreement for the collection by the township of summer taxes for the school district. See, 1976 PA 451, the School Code of 1976; MCLA 380.1 et seq; MSA 15.4001 et seq, Secs. 1612-1613.

It is my opinion, therefore, that the office of trustee of a charter township and the office of member of a board of education of a school district are not incompatible unless the charter township and school district in question undertake negotiations for or enter into a contract with each other.

Frank J. Kelley