Can a Mississippi county tax assessor/collector also serve as the interim county administrator at the same time?

Plain-English summary

A Bolivar County supervisor asked whether the county administrator (who had just been elected as the new tax assessor/collector) could continue serving as the interim county administrator while also taking on the tax assessor/collector job. The AG analyzed the question under Mississippi's core-powers doctrine.

The doctrine is simple to state and tricky to apply. The Mississippi Constitution, Article 1, Sections 1 and 2, separates powers among the three branches. A person who exercises "core powers" in one branch cannot simultaneously hold a position in another branch that also exercises core powers. Core powers, under Dye v. State and Alexander v. State (both Mississippi Supreme Court decisions), means actions that are "ongoing and are in the upper level of governmental affairs" and that have a "substantial policy-making character."

Two questions follow: which branch does each job belong to, and does each exercise core powers?
- Tax assessor/collector: The AG's office has consistently said this position exercises core powers within the executive branch.
- County administrator: Also part of the executive branch, but the Mississippi Court of Appeals held in Zimmerman v. Three Rivers Planning & Development District that the county administrator does not exercise core powers.

Because both positions are in the executive branch, there is no inter-branch separation-of-powers issue, and because only one of the two exercises core powers, the dual-position concern under the core-powers doctrine does not apply. The AG concluded the same person could serve in both.

The opinion also flags a separate concern: ethics-in-government questions are delegated to the Mississippi Ethics Commission. The AG declined to address those, providing the Commission's contact information instead.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2020. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Background and statutory framework

Mississippi's separation-of-powers doctrine is rooted in Article 1, Sections 1 and 2 of the 1890 Constitution. Section 1 creates the three branches; Section 2 says no one charged with the powers of one branch may exercise any of the powers of another, except as otherwise expressly provided. The Mississippi Supreme Court applied this principle to dual office holding in Alexander v. State, 441 So. 2d 1329 (Miss. 1983), and refined it in Dye v. State, 507 So. 2d 332 (Miss. 1987). (The "So. 2d" reporter is the Southern Reporter, used for state court decisions; both Alexander and Dye are Mississippi Supreme Court decisions.)

The core-powers test from those cases asks two things. First, in which branch does each office sit? Second, does each exercise core powers, "ongoing and are in the upper level of governmental affairs" with "substantial policy-making character"? If two offices in different branches both exercise core powers, one person cannot hold both.

Tax assessor/collector duties have been characterized in past AG opinions (Estes 2016, Cowgill 2007) as exercising core executive powers. Tax assessment and collection involve ongoing decisions that affect every property owner in the county and have substantial policy-making weight.

The county administrator role is different. The Mississippi Court of Appeals addressed it in Zimmerman v. Three Rivers Planning & Dev. Dist., 747 So. 2d 853, 860 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) (the "So. 2d" reporter and "Miss. Ct. App." designation indicate a Mississippi Court of Appeals decision, not the Supreme Court). The court held the county administrator does not exercise core powers. The administrator is more of an operational manager carrying out board policy.

Because both positions are in the executive branch and only one exercises core powers, the dual-role question under the core-powers doctrine has a clean answer: no separation-of-powers violation.

The opinion also addresses what the AG cannot decide. Ethics in government, conflicts of interest, and the Section 109/§ 25-4 (governmental ethics) family of issues are delegated by statute to the Mississippi Ethics Commission. The AG referred the requestor to the Commission for those questions.

Common questions

Q: Could the same answer apply to other county positions paired with elected offices?
A: It depends on which side of the core-powers line each position falls. The AG opinion's analysis is structural: identify the branch and identify whether the position exercises core powers. Apply that test to any other pair (e.g., circuit clerk and county finance officer, sheriff and emergency management director).

Q: Is there any time limit on serving in both roles?
A: The opinion does not impose one. The structural separation-of-powers analysis does not turn on duration. Practical or ethical concerns (workload, perception of conflict) might, but those are different issues.

Q: What about ethics issues?
A: The AG explicitly punted to the Mississippi Ethics Commission. Conflicts of interest, financial disclosure, and contracting with one's own employer are governed by separate statutes administered by the Commission. The contact information in the opinion: Mississippi Ethics Commission, P.O. Box 22746, Jackson, MS 39225-2746; (601) 359-1285; [email protected].

Q: Could the county hire a third person to serve as both?
A: The opinion focused on the specific scenario where the existing county administrator was elected tax assessor/collector. The same structural analysis applies to anyone proposed to hold both positions, but ethics rules might cut differently in different fact patterns.

Q: Does the answer change if the county administrator role is permanent vs. interim?
A: The opinion uses "interim" but does not draw a legal line on that basis. The core-powers analysis is the same. An interim role is still the role.

What this means for you

For county supervisors considering similar dual roles: Run the core-powers test for each pairing. If both positions exercise core powers and sit in different branches, the answer is no. If at least one does not, the doctrine does not block the arrangement, but ethics review still matters.

For county administrators: The Zimmerman characterization (no core powers) cuts in your favor for dual-role questions. It also affects job-description framing: the role is operational management, not policy-making.

For elected officials new to office: A quick conversation with the Mississippi Ethics Commission early on is worth more than discovering a problem later. The AG's office cannot give ethics advice; the Commission can.

For county attorneys: When asked about dual office holding, build the core-powers analysis into the response. Then separately address the ethics issues (or refer to the Commission). Confusing the two questions is a common error.

Citations and references

Constitutional provisions:
- Mississippi Constitution, Article 1, Sections 1 and 2 (separation of powers)

Cases:
- Dye v. State, 507 So. 2d 332 (Miss. 1987), Mississippi Supreme Court core-powers doctrine
- Alexander v. State, 441 So. 2d 1329 (Miss. 1983), Mississippi Supreme Court foundational core-powers case
- Zimmerman v. Three Rivers Planning & Dev. Dist., 747 So. 2d 853 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999), Mississippi Court of Appeals decision that county administrator does not exercise core powers

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/J.Liner_January-31-2020-Dual-Employment.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

Lynn Fitch
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OPINIONS DIVISION

January 31, 2020

Jacorius O. Liner
Bolivar County Supervisor, District One
Post Office Box 798
Cleveland, Mississippi 38732

Re: Dual Employment

Dear Mr. Liner:

Attorney General Lynn Fitch is in receipt of your opinion request and has assigned it to me for research and reply.

Background and Issues Presented

Your request states:

Can the county administrator who is the newly elected tax assessor/collector also serve as the interim county administrator in a dual capacity? Is there authority that addresses this issue?

Response and Legal Analysis

The separation of powers doctrine places limitations upon an individual's ability to serve simultaneously in different branches of the government. See Article 1, Sections 1 and 2, Miss. Const. (1890). You have asked if it is permissible for someone to simultaneously serve as the tax assessor/collector and county administrator. A person who exercises "core powers" in one branch of government cannot simultaneously hold a position in another branch of government if that position also exercises "core powers." "Core power" has been defined by the Court to include those circumstances "where the acts are 'ongoing and are in the upper level of governmental affairs' and have a substantial policy-making character." Dye v. State, 507 So. 2d 332 (Miss. 1987) (quoting Alexander, 441 So. 2d at 1337).

To respond to your question, a determination first must be made in which branch of government each job falls and if the position exercises core powers. This office has consistently opined that the tax assessor/collector exercises powers at the core of the executive branch. See MS AG Op., Estes (June 17, 2016); MS AG Op., Cowgill (January 26, 2007). While the county administrator is a member of the executive branch, the Mississippi Court of Appeals has held the county administrator does not exercise core powers. Zimmerman v. Three Rivers Planning & Dev. Dist., 747 So. 2d 853, 860 (Miss. Ct. App. 1999). Therefore, serving as the county administrator and tax assessor/collector would not result in a violation of the separation of powers doctrine.

The scenario which you describe may also involve the State's Ethics in Government Law. Matters involving ethics in government are delegated to the Mississippi Ethics Commission. The contact information for the Ethics Commission is as follows:

Mississippi Ethics Commission
Post Office Box 22746
Jackson, MS 39225-2746
E-Mail: [email protected]
Telephone: (601) 359-1285

If we may be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Emiko Hemleben
Special Assistant Attorney General