I am aware that a contract that is not paid out of current funds creates an unconstitutional debt. I am looking at a contract that costs the county nothing. No really, I'm not smoking evidence. The county would agree to allow a phone company to be the exlusive provider of phone service to inmates, at appropriately confiscatory rates, in exchange for a percentage of said confiscatory fees. Given that the county is obligated to pay nothing, would a contract lacking a funding-out clause, with a term exceeding one year, pass constitutional muster?

We have a contract like that. Of course, you have to peruse it to try and ferret out potential hidden costs, such as liquidated damages or indemnification. Absent those, however, article 11, section 7 applies only to expenditures. So if the county only stands to receive money, no debt is created and there are no anticipated expenditures to come from current revenues or an interest and sinking fund. Thus, you shouldn't have a constitutional issue.

One thing to watch for, however, is the contract's choice of venue provision. We've had contractual suitors try to slide one by us that would have landed any lawsuit in Dallas County, or Delaware, or somewhere else. We pointed out that section 15.015 of the CPRC sets mandatory venue of a claim against the county within that county, and that any contrary provision in the contract would be illegal and, thus, void. They agreed to move venue to Potter County, probably because of the great sightseeing opportunities inherent in that decision.

Much obliged. The choice of law provision is a doozy - Alabama. That, of course, will be an issue for negotiation. What's even better is the waiver of any rights to a trial by jury and the submission of the controversy to binding arbitration in Mobile, Alabama. I'm not sure which is worse, arbitration or Mobile. The two combined make my head explode. The negotiations continue.