Can a Mississippi county employee use the county work vehicle to drive to meetings and business of a separate compensated state board position?

Plain-English summary

Larry Johnson, the Director of the Leflore County Civic Center, also serves as the Leflore County elected member of the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee District Board (a compensated position). His county employer issues him a county-owned vehicle for the civic center job. He asked whether he could use that county vehicle to travel to Levee Board business.

The AG said no. Public employees cannot use work vehicles for private or personal use. Serving on the Levee Board is "entirely separate and distinct" from his county employment, and because the Levee Board position is compensated, using the county vehicle for that purpose benefits him personally. Article IV, Section 66 of the Mississippi Constitution forbids that kind of donation of public resources to a private benefit. The AG cited two prior opinions on the same point: Evans-Bass (May 13, 2020) on county vehicles and Weaver (Sept. 22, 2008) (county employee's personal use of "a county vehicle is an impermissible donation").

The opinion noted one explicit statutory exception: Section 17-25-11 lets law enforcement officers use their official vehicles while performing private security duties under certain circumstances. That exception is narrow and does not apply here.

The AG also flagged that whether the dual service raises an ethics issue under Mississippi's Ethics in Government Laws (Sections 25-4-101 et seq.) is for the Mississippi Ethics Commission to address.

What this means for you

For county employees holding a separate compensated office

If your county-issued vehicle is for your county job, that is the only use it has. Driving it to compensated state board meetings, levee district business, or any other separate paid role is an impermissible donation of public resources to your private benefit. Use a personal vehicle and seek mileage reimbursement from the separate board if its rules allow it.

This applies even if the trip is "official" in the sense that it is for some other government function. The relevant question is whether your county employer is paying for resources used for a separate compensated role. If yes, that is the impermissible donation.

For county administrators and HR officers

Audit your vehicle-use policy to make sure it explicitly addresses dual-office holders. Employees holding outside compensated positions need a clear written rule: county vehicles for county business only, no exceptions for "other government" trips. Document the rule and the training. The state auditor may flag this in a future audit.

For county attorneys

If a county employee asks about driving the county vehicle to an outside compensated role, point them to this opinion, the Weaver opinion, and Section 66. The framework is consistent: personal use of public property is an impermissible donation, regardless of whether the personal use is for "another public" purpose. Compensated outside roles are private benefit for this analysis.

For Levee District Commissioners and other compensated board members

Use a personal vehicle (or a vehicle provided by the board itself if the board has authority to do so) and submit mileage reimbursement through the board's process. If the board pays per-meeting or per-diem rates, it should be paying for travel. Do not piggyback county vehicles for board travel.

For the State Auditor

The combination of dual-office holding plus personal vehicle use is a recurring audit area. This opinion is a clear citation for the rule.

Common questions

Can I just reimburse the county for the gas and mileage I use on Levee Board trips?
The AG opinion does not authorize that workaround. The vehicle itself is a county asset. The wear and tear, insurance exposure, and depreciation are not captured by gas and mileage reimbursement alone. The cleaner answer is: do not use the county vehicle for the second compensated job.

What about uncompensated outside roles?
The AG's analysis turned partly on the fact that the Levee Board position is compensated, so using the county vehicle for that work "benefits you personally." If a role were truly uncompensated, the analysis might be different, but the impermissible-donation framework still applies whenever public assets are diverted to a private or non-county purpose. Ask county counsel before assuming an uncompensated role gets a pass.

Are there any exceptions to the no-personal-use rule?
Yes, but they are statutory and narrow. Section 17-25-11 lets law enforcement officers use official vehicles while performing private security duties under certain circumstances. There is no equivalent exception for outside board service.

What if my county-vehicle use happens to overlap with county business?
If the trip serves both your county role and the outside role, the personal-benefit issue still applies for the outside role. Document the trip's primary purpose and apportion the cost if you have to take both trips at once. The cleanest practice is to keep them separate.

Is this also an ethics violation under Section 25-4-101 et seq.?
The AG specifically referred that question to the Mississippi Ethics Commission. Possible, but the AG would not opine.

Background and statutory framework

Mississippi public employees are not authorized to use their work vehicles for private or personal use. The AG has applied this principle consistently to both municipal and county vehicles, citing Evans-Bass (May 13, 2020) and Weaver (Sept. 22, 2008).

Article IV, Section 66 of the Mississippi Constitution prohibits the legislature (and by extension, units of local government) from granting "extra compensation" or "any donation, gratuity or grant" of public funds. The classic application: a public employee using public assets for a private purpose receives an impermissible donation.

Compensated dual-office holding compounds the issue. The Levee Board commissioner role pays compensation under Laws 2002, Ch. 593, § 1. If the county vehicle is doing the work of getting the commissioner to those compensated meetings, the county is effectively subsidizing the commissioner's earning of that separate compensation. That is the impermissible-donation problem.

Section 17-25-11 carves out a narrow exception for law enforcement officers using official vehicles for private security duties. It is the only express statutory exception cited by the AG and does not apply here.

The dual-office ethics question (whether holding both positions is itself a conflict) is governed by Sections 25-4-101 et seq. (Ethics in Government Laws), enforced by the Mississippi Ethics Commission, not the AG.

Citations

• Miss. Code Ann. § 17-25-11 (law enforcement officer private security exception for use of official vehicle)
• Miss. Code Ann. §§ 25-4-101, et seq. (Mississippi Ethics in Government Laws)
• Miss. Const. art. IV, § 66 (no donation, gratuity, or grant of public funds)
• Laws 2002, Ch. 593, § 1 (compensation for Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee District commissioners)

Source

• Landing page: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/divisions/opinions-and-policy/recent-opinions/
• Original PDF: https://attorneygenerallynnfitch.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/L.-Johnson-April-17-2025-Use-of-County-Vehicle-for-Travel-Associated-with-Levee-Board-Business.pdf

Original opinion text

April 17, 2025

The Honorable Larry Johnson
Commissioner, Yazoo-Mississippi Delta Levee District Board
Post Office Box 416
Greenwood, MS 38935
Re:

Use of County Vehicle for Travel Associated with Levee Board
Business

Dear Commissioner Johnson:
The Office of the Attorney General has received your request for an official opinion.
Background
According to your request, you are the Leflore County elected member on the Yazoo-Mississippi
Delta Levee District Board ("Board"), which is a compensated position. You are also employed as
the Director of the Leflore County Civic Center. The latter position affords you the use of a county-owned vehicle.
Question Presented
Is it a conflict of interest for a county employee to use a county-issued work vehicle for business
travel associated with an elected, compensated position on a separate state board?
Brief Response
Generally, the expenditure of county resources for personal or private use is prohibited by state
law. We find no statutory authority excepting a county employee's use of a county vehicle for
business travel associated with a separately elected, compensated position on a state board. As to
whether such use constitutes an ethical conflict of interest, we refer you to the Mississippi Ethics
Commission.

Applicable Law and Discussion
Generally, public employees are not authorized to use their work vehicles for private or personal
use.[1] At the local level, we have previously and consistently opined against the private or personal
use of both municipal and county vehicles. See MS AG Op., Evans-Bass (May 13, 2020); MS AG
Op., Weaver (Sept. 22, 2008).
Serving as Levee Board Commissioner is entirely separate and distinct from the county
employment for which you were provided a county vehicle. Further, you receive compensation for
the elected position, which means the use of the county vehicle benefits you personally. See Laws
2002, Ch. 593, § 1. A county employee's personal use of "a county vehicle is an impermissible
donation." MS AG Op., Weaver at *1; see also MISS. CONST. art. IV, § 66.
For further guidance on any potential conflicts under Mississippi's Ethics in Government Laws,
Mississippi Code Annotated Sections 25-4-101 et seq., we refer you to the Mississippi Ethics
Commission.
If this office may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
LYNN FITCH, ATTORNEY GENERAL
By:

/s/ Caleb A. Pracht
Caleb A. Pracht
Special Assistant Attorney General

[1] However, there is express statutory authority permitting law enforcement officers to use their
official vehicles while performing private security duties under certain circumstances. See Miss. Code
Ann. § 17-25-11.