Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 46 / Act 156 of 1851
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.30a (2026)

County board of commissioners; member ineligible for other county appointment or employment; liability for compensation; action for recovery of compensation; disposition of moneys recovered; duty of prosecuting attorney; violation; penalty; certain offices or appointments not prohibited.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

COUNTY BOARDS OF COMMISSIONERS


Act 156 of 1851


46.30a County board of commissioners; member ineligible for other county appointment or employment; liability for compensation; action for recovery of compensation; disposition of moneys recovered; duty of prosecuting attorney; violation; penalty; certain offices or appointments not prohibited.

Sec. 30a.

    (1) A member of the county board of commissioners of any county shall not be eligible to receive, or shall not receive, an appointment from, or be employed by an officer, board, committee, or other authority of that county except as otherwise provided by law.

    (2) In case of an appointment or employment made in violation of this section, both the person making the appointment or employment and the person appointed or employed shall be liable for moneys paid to the person as salary, wages, or compensation in connection with the appointment or employment. In case the appointment or employment is made by a committee or board, a member of the committee or board at the time the appointment was made or contract of employment entered into shall be liable. An action for the recovery of salary, wages, or compensation paid in connection with any appointment or employment made in contravention of this section, may be maintained by a taxpayer of the county. The moneys recovered in the action shall be deposited in the county treasury to the credit of the general fund.

    (3) The prosecuting attorney of the county, upon the request of the taxpayer, shall prosecute the action in the taxpayer's behalf.

    (4) A member of the county board of commissioners accepting an appointment or employment in violation of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $100.00 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or both. An officer or other official, or a member of a board or committee making an appointment or employment in violation of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days, or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

    (5) This act does not limit or prohibit the right of a member of the county board of commissioners of a county from becoming a candidate for an elective office at a general or special election, or from accepting from the county board of commissioners an office or appointment for which a salary is not paid for the services. A member of the county board of commissioners may act on a board of determination or as a special commissioner in connection with all drainage matters calling for a board of determination. As used in this section, "salary", "wages", and "compensation" do not include per diem compensation.

    (6) This act does not prohibit a member of the county board of commissioners of a county from accepting compensation as an administrator of the federal emergency employment program, 29 U.S.C. 841 to 851, for that county. This subsection shall apply to compensation received by a member for services rendered as an administrator after July 12, 1971 and prior to December 1, 1974.

History: Add. 1937, Act 199, Imd. Eff. July 20, 1937 ;-- Am. 1941, Act 124, Eff. Jan. 10, 1942 ;-- Am. 1945, Act 172, Eff. Sept. 6, 1945 ;-- CL 1948, 46.30a ;-- Am. 1978, Act 326, Imd. Eff. July 11, 1978

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1972–2017 · leading case: Hughes v. Region VII Area Agency on Aging, 744 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hughes v. Region VII Area Agency on Aging, 744 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 21× “In this taxpayer suit for recovery of compensation paid and received in alleged violation of MCL 46.30a, plaintiff Bob Hughes appeals as of right the trial court’s opinion and order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants.”
Charles Vayda v. Cnty. of Lake, 909 N.W.2d 874 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 15× “This case requires us to reconcile provisions set forth by MCL 46.30a of the county boards of commissioners act (CBCA), MCL 46.”
Crain v. Gibson, 250 N.W.2d 792 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 10× “It is the plaintiff’s claim that defendant violated *198 1937 PA 199 ; MCLA 46.30a; MSA 5.353(1), providing as follows: "No member of the board of supervisors of any county shall be eligible to receive, or shall receive, any appointment from, or be employed in any capacity…”
Wayne Cnty. Prosecuting Attorney v. Wayne Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 205 N.W.2d 27 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “MCLA 46.30a; MSA 5.353(1): Recover wages two jobs Mandatory duty of prosecutor to bring civil actions on liability of county supervisor for wages paid on account of any other county position held by him.”
Charles Vayda v. Cnty. of Lake (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 13× “The issue on appeal is whether plaintiff, Charles Vayda, was entitled to notice and a hearing under the VPA before the termination of his employment with the Lake County Sheriff’s Office, after he became a member of the Lake County Board of Commissioners (the Board).”
Schoolcraft Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners v. Schoolcraft Mem'l Hosp. Bd. of Trs., 243 N.W.2d 708 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). “1 Plaintiff effectively concedes, and the Court agrees, that the lower court correctly determined that a member of the county board of commissioners may not simultaneously be a member of the county hospital board of trustees.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.30a(1) — 3 cases
Hughes v. Region VII Area Agency on Aging, 744 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “In this taxpayer suit for recovery of compensation paid and received in alleged violation of MCL 46.30a, plaintiff Bob Hughes appeals as of right the trial court’s opinion and order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants.”
Charles Vayda v. Cnty. of Lake, 909 N.W.2d 874 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “This case requires us to reconcile provisions set forth by MCL 46.30a of the county boards of commissioners act (CBCA), MCL 46.”
Charles Vayda v. Cnty. of Lake (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “The issue on appeal is whether plaintiff, Charles Vayda, was entitled to notice and a hearing under the VPA before the termination of his employment with the Lake County Sheriff’s Office, after he became a member of the Lake County Board of Commissioners (the Board).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.30a(2) — 3 cases
Charles Vayda v. Cnty. of Lake, 909 N.W.2d 874 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “This case requires us to reconcile provisions set forth by MCL 46.30a of the county boards of commissioners act (CBCA), MCL 46.”
Hughes v. Region VII Area Agency on Aging, 744 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “In this taxpayer suit for recovery of compensation paid and received in alleged violation of MCL 46.30a, plaintiff Bob Hughes appeals as of right the trial court’s opinion and order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants.”
Charles Vayda v. Cnty. of Lake (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “The issue on appeal is whether plaintiff, Charles Vayda, was entitled to notice and a hearing under the VPA before the termination of his employment with the Lake County Sheriff’s Office, after he became a member of the Lake County Board of Commissioners (the Board).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.30a(3) — 1 case
Hughes v. Region VII Area Agency on Aging, 744 N.W.2d 10 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “In this taxpayer suit for recovery of compensation paid and received in alleged violation of MCL 46.30a, plaintiff Bob Hughes appeals as of right the trial court’s opinion and order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 46.30a(4) — 2 cases
Charles Vayda v. Cnty. of Lake, 909 N.W.2d 874 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “This case requires us to reconcile provisions set forth by MCL 46.30a of the county boards of commissioners act (CBCA), MCL 46.”
Charles Vayda v. Cnty. of Lake (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “The issue on appeal is whether plaintiff, Charles Vayda, was entitled to notice and a hearing under the VPA before the termination of his employment with the Lake County Sheriff’s Office, after he became a member of the Lake County Board of Commissioners (the Board).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.