I will admit that I am dense on many occassions...this being no exception.
Trying to figure out the requirements of HB 914.
Does a commissioner who has a checking account with a bank(doing business) need to file a disclosure form if that bank happens to be the county depository. I have read the staute several tims and still don't grasp it. Must be Monday!

As you have surmised, the statute is less than unmistakably clear. The requirement to file the disclosure statement is triggered if the bank "has an ... other business relationship with [the commissioner] that results in [the commissioner] receiving taxable income[.]" Tex. Loc. Gov't Code sec. 176.003(a)(2)(A). I'm presuming there's not a question concerning gifts with an aggregate value of more than $250 so as to trigger subsection (a)(2)(B). Two issues bear upon the determination.

First, what is a "business relationship"? Of course, it would have been helpful for the statute to define such a pivotal term, but it does not. "Business" can be defined as "a usually commercial or mercantile activity engaged in as a means of livelihood". Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 154 (10th Ed. 1996). Similarly, Black's Law Dictionary defines the term as "[a] commercial enterprise carried on for profit; a particular occupation or employment habitually engaged in for livelihood or gain." Black's Law Dictionary 192 (7th Ed. 1999). In this vein, it could be argued that, unless your commissioner makes his/her living by investment and the accrual of income and capital gain, the account is not indicative of activity by which he/she makes a living. Instead, it could be characterized as an incidental benefit of a consumer transaction. On the other hand, a strict reading of the Black's definition could prompt an argument that the arrangement assuredly results in "gain" for the commissioner, perhaps bringing the account within the ambit of "business." However, the accrual of gain within this definition relates to habitual engagement for that purpose. The overarching definition is concerned with a commercial enterprise carried on for profit. Undoubtedly, the bank engages in maintaining customer accounts for profit, but does the commissioner also maintain his/her account for that purpose? That would depend on the nature of the account.

Second, you have to address whether the commissioner receives taxable income from the account. If it's an interest-bearing account, the answer probably is "yes." Clear as mud? In the end, it may be prudent for your commissioner (and any others with interest-bearing accounts at the county depository) to file the disclosure statement. On the other hand, they can always bow up and try to make some law. As one very accomplished lawyer once told me, though, "I don't like making law. When you make law, you don't make money."

I feel redeemed....I was not the only one who read the statute and said HUH!
Thanks for you interpretation Scott. The prudent course may be to have the commissioner file the form as it is fairly short and painless, but the statute could have been worded more clearly IMO.How many more of these odd-ball situations will arise?

I started a post to this the other day because we are knee deep in reviewing this piece of "legislation" and just concluded that since a bank account accrues taxable income for the Commissioner and the Bank and the Commissioner have a contract (business relationship usually are formed by signing such documents) that as strict constructionists like the Chief Justice we would conclude that the Bank is a "player" in this fine statute. But I had to go to a meeting so Scott got to break out the Funk and Websters.

Of course I suspect I will hear that the bank doesn't have a contract with the Commissioner, instead they have a deposit agreement. Unfortunately, such niceties and fine distinctions were not covered in Professor Krahmer's Contracts class at Tech so I call them all contracts.

Is this a silly requirement of an ill-defined statute? Most likely ill-defined given the temperament of the last legislature, however, if the local government official has a loan from the depository bank that is approaching default and the depository contract comes up for renewal. Well, I don't want to draw any wrong conclusions from such a picture.

So, I guess we will have to face the firestorm over the apparent broadness of chapter 176 of the Texas Local Government Code. If you compare chapter 171 with 176 you will see that the legislature could have used the definitions from 171. However, their failure to use those definitions probably puts us in this position. If and when a Commissioners Court expands the coverage of chapter 176 please post it to this forum.

Ray

By the way Merry Christmas, I mean Happy Holidays, no uh Good Festivus, oh uh how about Happy New Year

My understanding, from those more in the know than myself, is that chapter 176 was a bit of tit-for-tat aimed at TAC for its efforts to kill the property tax cap bills during the regular session. If that was the true legislative intent, then it would be fair to surmise that the statute was meant to reach as broadly as possible to penalize errant commissioners for their support of TAC's legislative efforts. That also would explain the failure to tie the key definitional concepts in chapter 176 to the pre-existing definitions in chapter 171.

Oh, and Merry Christmas and Happy New Year (we're too far North and too frozen to worry about political correctness).

Whatever you call the season, we are going to need some strong eggnog to to make this section entertaining reading....what a mess!

With many thanks to Scott, the forms for this can be found at www.ethics.state.tx.us/forms/CIS.pdf

Assuming the official has an interest bearing account at the county depository....do they have to disclose the amount of income received from the bank or is the disclosure of the relationship and the nature ie. savings account enough? What does the word "extent" mean?
Should have had more eggnog!!!!!

I'm telling my people that since any amount is a conflict which must be disclosed, that they may keep the dollar amount to themselves.