By
Robert O. Dawson
Bryant Smith Chair in Law
University of Texas School of Law
2001 Case Summaries 2000 Case Summaries 1999 Case Summaries
Attorney General says commissioners court has
not authority over juvenile board other than to fix the amount of county funds
to be appropriated (99-3-40)
On August 9, 1999, the Texas Attorney General opined that county
commissioners courts have no authority over juvenile boards other than to
determine the amount of county funds to appropriate to the board’s use for
juvenile justice.
99-3-40. Attorney General Opinion No. JC-0085, 1999 WL 6704223, 1999
Tex.Ag.Lexis ___ (8/9/99)[Texas Juvenile Law (4th Edition 1996)].
Re: Authority of a commissioners court to set salaries for employees of a
juvenile probation department and related questions (RQ-963)
Ms. Kristen Klein
Guadalupe County Auditor
307 West Court, Suite 205
Seguin, Texas 78155
The Honorable Frank H. Bass, Jr.
Montgomery County Attorney
Courthouse
301 North Main Street, 3rd Floor
Conroe, Texas 77301
Dear Ms. Klein and Mr. Bass:
You have each asked this office questions concerning the authority of a juvenile
probation board vis-a-vis the commissioners court. While Ms. Klein's questions
are somewhat more detailed, in both cases we believe that prior opinions of this
office dictate the same result. Ultimately, in our view, the juvenile probation
board is an independent entity whose acts are subject to very limited scrutiny
by the commissioners court of the county in which it is located. See Tex. Att'y
Gen. Op. No. DM-460 (1997). This conclusion underpins our answers to your
questions.
We begin with the question which you have both asked, namely the effect of Local
Government Code section 111.094, added by the Seventy-fifth Legislature in 1997.
Section 111.094 reads, "The commissioners court in preparing the county
budget shall determine the amount of county funds to be spent for the juvenile
probation department in the county budget." TEX, LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. §
111.094 (Vernon 1999) (emphasis added). Mr. Bass asks, in effect, how to read
this provision together with section 152.0004 of the Human Resources Code, the
general provision with regard to expenses of a juvenile board, which requires
the commissioners court to pay from the general fund "the salaries of
juvenile probation personnel and other expenses certified as necessary by the
juvenile board chairman." TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. § 152.0004 (Vernon
1990); see Letter from Honorable Frank H. Bass, Jr., Montgomery County Attorney,
to Honorable Dan Morales, Attorney General (July 30, 1997) [hereinafter
"Bass Letter"]. Ms. Klein references Human Resources Code section
152.1001(d), the particular provision for Guadalupe County, which requires the
court to "provide the necessary funds to pay the salary and expenses of the
juvenile probation officer." Id. § 152.1001(d); see Letter from Kristen
Klein, Guadalupe County Auditor, to Office of the Attorney General, Opinion
Committee (March 31, 1997) [hereinafter "Klein Letter"]. You each ask
in light of these provisions who has the authority to set the budget of the
juvenile department.
As this office pointed out in opinion DM-460:
The department is funded with both county and state funds. [TEX. HUM. RES. CODE
ANN. §§ 141.081, .084, 152.004, .005, .0012 (Vernon 1990 & Supp. 1999);
see TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. s 111.094 (Vernon 1999)]. Although the board is
required to submit the department's budget to the commissioners court, the
latter's authority over the budget is limited. [TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. §§
142.002, 152.007, .0012 (Vernon 1990 & Supp. 1999); TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE
ANN. § 111.094 (Vernon 1999)]. A commissioners court has no authority to
consider or review the portion of the department budget funded with state funds.
[See TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. s 152.0012 (Vernon Supp. 1999)]. With respect to
the items funded by the county, the commissioners court[] ... may only determine
the total dollar amount of county funds allocated to the department. [TEX. LOC.
GOV'T CODE ANN. § 111.094 (Vernon 1999)]. It may not determine the particular
purposes or amounts of any expenditures from these or any other funds the
department receives.
Tex. Att'y Gen. Op. No. DM-460 (1997) at 2-4 (footnotes omitted); see also Tex.
Att'y Gen. Op. No. MW-587 (1982).
Thus, the commissioners court's role in the budgeting of the juvenile probation
department is limited to setting the dollar amount of county funds in the
department's budget and reviewing that portion of the budget on an abuse of
discretion standard. See TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. § 152.0012 (Vernon Supp.
1999). The statutes do not give the commissioners court authority to determine
how the funds are to be expended.
This understanding informs our answers to the last set of questions in Ms.
Klein's request as well. The questions arose with respect to a controversy
regarding the employment of two juvenile detention officers. The questions
concern whether the juvenile board or the commissioners court has authority over
the employment decisions, travel policies, and general management and financial
decisions regarding a juvenile probation department or other program within the
board's jurisdiction. These decisions generally are within the purview of the
board. Because the board itself is an independent entity, its policy decisions
are not within the jurisdiction of the commissioners court. See Tex. Att'y Gen.
Op. No. DM-460(1997). Neither are its employment decisions- whether they concern
hiring, retention, salaries, or raises. The commissioners court may decide the
dollar amount it will give the board, and may review county-funded programs to
the extent they are county-funded. But it has no general supervisory authority
over the board, or over those matters within the board's jurisdiction.
Since that is the case, we can answer as well those questions relating to
whether the commissioners court must consider in meeting and approve the
expenses of the juvenile office, or of the juvenile probation department, or of
the juvenile detention department, before paying such claims, as well as the
question of whether the commissioners court must approve any amendment of the
board's budget which does not require additional funds. We answer all these
questions in the negative. Because the court has no supervisory authority over
the board, it has no such approval power as the questions presuppose. [FN1] As
this office has previously noted, "a requirement that the commissioners
court review and approve juvenile board or department expenditures is contrary
to the board's budgetary and financial independence." Id. at 10.
Ms. Klein further asks whether the board, as distinct from the court, must meet
and approve the payment of claims for the expenses of the juvenile office,
juvenile probation department, or juvenile detention department before paying
such claims. We find no requirement for such formal meeting and prior approval
in the statute establishing the juvenile board. Moreover, procedures for the
monitoring and review of board finances are already to be found in the rules
promulgated by the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (the
"Commission") at title 37 of the Texas Administrative Code, chapter
341. In particular, subsections (f) through (l) of section 341.2, all of which
are mandatory, require the adoption of written fiscal policies, an agreement to
comply with Commission standards, the assignment of accounting responsibilities
to an appropriate fiscal officer and the preparation and submission to the
Commission of an annual operating budget, the deposit of Commission funds in a
special fund in the county depository and the submission of an annual fiscal
audit to the Commission, the covering of all employees with access to monies by
surety bonds, fiscal audits of program expenditures, and the keeping of
financial and statistical records. See 37 TEX. ADMIN. CODE §
341.2(f)-(1)(1998). It would appear therefore that the Commission has adopted in
these standards a comprehensive scheme to ensure sound fiscal practice by the
board. Accordingly, while the board might, if it so chose, adopt requirements
for board approval of the payment of various claims as part of its fiscal
policy, nothing in the statute by which it is established requires it to do so.
As to budget amendments, however, we believe that such amendments do require
formal board action. Section 140.004(b)(2) of the Local Government Code requires
the board to hold a meeting before adopting its annual budget. See TEX. LOC.
GOV'T CODE ANN. § 140.004(b)(2) (Vernon 1999). Ms. Klein asks whether, should
the board choose to amend that budget, it must do so in a formal meeting. In our
view, the amendment of such a budget would also require a formal meeting and
board action. Were it otherwise, and the power to amend the budget delegated,
for example, to the chair alone, section 140.004 would in practice be reducible
to a dead letter. Proceedings of equal dignity are necessary to avoid that
result.
Finally, Ms. Klein asks how to interpret the word "expenses" in
section 152.1001(d) of the Human Resources Code. Section 152.1001 establishes
the Guadalupe County Juvenile Board. Subsection (d) thereof provides, "The
chairman [of the board] shall certify all claims for expenses of the juvenile
probation officer as necessary in the performance of the officer's duties. The
commissioners court shall provide the necessary funds to pay the salary and
expenses of the juvenile probation officer." TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. §
152.1001(d) (Vernon 1990). Ms. Klein asks whether expenses here refer to out-
of-pocket expenses of the officer himself, expenses "directly related to
that officer," or "all bills paid by the county for the operation of
the probation department." Klein Letter, supra, at 1. The last is, in our
view, the correct interpretation. Subsection (d) parallels the general provision
at section 152.0004 of the Human Resources Code, which requires payment of
"the salaries of juvenile probation personnel and other expenses certified
as necessary by the juvenile board chairman." TEX. HUM. RES. CODE ANN. §
152.0004 (Vernon 1990). Accordingly, "expenses" in Guadalupe County's
statute must be construed broadly, as is section 152.0004. The term is not
limited to the particular expenses of the juvenile probation officer himself.
SUMMARY
Local Government Code section 111.094 gives a commissioners court only the
authority to set the dollar amount of the county funds which it will expend on
the juvenile probation department. The commissioners court does not have general
supervisory authority over the juvenile board, an independent entity, and
therefore does not have authority over the board's employment decisions or over
individual line items in the budgets of programs under the board's jurisdiction,
such as the juvenile probation department or juvenile detention department. The
commissioners court's power of review over the juvenile probation department is
limited to a review of the amount of county funds in that department's budget on
an abuse of discretion standard. Consequently the juvenile board, and not the
commissioners court, has authority over the employment decisions, travel
policies, and general management and financial decisions regarding a juvenile
probation department, juvenile detention department, or juvenile detention
facility. Further, the commissioners court has no authority to approve the
expenses of programs under the jurisdiction of the juvenile board before paying
such claims, or to approve amendments of the board's budget.
General procedure for the monitoring and review of juvenile board finances and
fiscal policy are to be found in the rules promulgated by the Texas Juvenile
Probation Commission at title 37 Texas Administrative Code, chapter 341. While a
juvenile board might, if it so chose, adopt requirements of board approval of
the payment of various claims as part of its fiscal policy, it is not required
by statute to do so. Budget amendments, however, require formal board action of
equal dignity with the procedure for budget adoption outlined in section 140.004
of the Local Government Code.
The term "expenses" in section 152.1001(d) of the Human Resources
Code-a part of the section establishing the Guadalupe County Juvenile Board-is,
like the general expenses provision at section 152.0004 of the Human Resources
Code, to be broadly construed.
Yours very truly,
John Cornyn
Attorney General of Texas
Andy Taylor
First Assistant Attorney General
Clark Kent Ervin
Deputy Attorney General - General Counsel
Elizabeth Robinson
Chair
Opinion Committee
James E. Tourtelott
Assistant Attorney General - Opinion Committee
FN1. We note, however, that section 140.004 of the Local Government Code
requires the filing with the commissioners court of a copy of the proposed
budget and a statement containing the date of the board's meeting to finalize
the budget. Since, as we determine later, any amendment of the budget requires
board action of equal dignity with the section 140.004 requirements, such filing
must be made for amendments as well. See TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 140.004
(Vernon 1999).