Opinion
No. 78-1366
Decided June 13, 1979.
Counties — Payment of claims — Auditor required to issue warrant, when — Contract entered into by county sheriff under R.C. 325.17.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Clark County.
Labor Relations Bureau Inc., relator-appellee herein, provides management consulting services to public employers. On February 22, 1977, relator entered into a six-month contract with Sheriff Donald E. Sanders of Clark County, pursuant to which relator agreed to assist the sheriff in personnel matters. In return for this service, relator was to receive $1,000 per month.
Relator's staff commenced performance of its obligations under this contract and, on March 9, 1977, relator presented a billing in the amount of $1,000 to William Corvin, the sheriff's office manager. The office manager was advised by William S. Glass, the Clark County Auditor, respondent-appellant herein, that a certificate of availability of funds was required to reserve the monies obligated under the contract. Corvin then prepared a purchase order for the entire $6,000 to be paid under the contract and submitted it to the respondent.
Respondent auditor, upon receiving the purchase order, determined that the sheriff had sufficient appropriated and unencumbered funds in his general account to cover the contract with relator on both the date of the execution of the contract and on the date that the certificate was requested. Respondent, on March 10, 1977, then executed a "County Auditor's Certificate" to that effect on the purchase order submitted by Corvin.
In addition, respondent reserved $6,000 of the sheriff's previously appropriated and unencumbered monies for payment of the obligation incurred by the contract. Respondent then forwarded the contract and the attached purchase order to the county commissioners for their approval. The county commissioner did not act to approve relator's contract.
Respondent refused to issue a warrant for payment to relator of the sum due it under its contract, and relator thereupon instituted the instant mandamus action in the Court of Appeals to compel respondent to issue this warrant.
The Court of Appeals allowed the writ, and the cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Messrs. Topper, Alloway, Goodman, DeLeone Duffey and Mr. John W. Zeiger, for appellee.
Mr. James A. Berry, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. David E. Smith, for appellant.
R.C. 325.17 provides, in pertinent part, that:
"From moneys appropriated for their offices, the officers mentioned in section 325.27 of the Revised Code may contract for the services of fiscal and management consultants to aid them in the execution of their powers and duties."
A sheriff is one of the officers mentioned in R.C. 325.27. The record shows that he did contract for the services of management consultants, and that on February 22, 1977, he was obligating moneys which had been lawfully appropriated for his office.
Appellant, while conceding that the contract at issue did not require prior approval by the county commissioners, contends however, that the contract is void because the sheriff failed to comply with the provisions of R.C. 5705.41(D), in that this contract was executed without an auditor's certificate being attached thereto, and without any determination by the auditor, prior to the execution of the contract, that funds were in fact available for payment on the contract.
R.C. 319.16 provides, in pertinent part:
"* * * [T]he county auditor shall issue warrants on the county treasurer for all moneys payable from the county treasury, upon presentation of the proper order or voucher for the moneys * * *. The auditor shall not issue a warrant for the payment of any claim against the county, unless it is allowed by the board of county commissioners, except where the amount due is fixed by law or is allowed by an officer or tribunal so authorized by law." (Emphasis added.)
This court finds, as did the court below, that R.C. 5705.41 (D) is not applicable herein, inasmuch as Sheriff Sanders entered into the contract under the provisions of R.C. 325.17. Thus, under R.C. 319.16, appellant has a clear legal duty to issue the warrant herein. See State, ex rel. Giuliani, v. Perk (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 235; and State, ex rel. Colgrove, v. Supanick (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 141.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.