Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

The Attorney General of Texas October 13, 1983 JIM MATTOX Attorney General Supreme Court Building Honorable Mike Driscoll Opinion No.JM-79 P. 0. Box 12546 Harris County Attorney Austin, TX. 76711. 2546 1001 Preston, Suite 634 Re: Authority of cormnissioners 5121475-2501 Houston, Texas 77002 court to refuse to approve Telex 9101674-1367 Telecopier 5121475.0266 hospital budget on grounds that it funds pregnancy termination ClilIiC 714 Jackson, Suite 700 Dallas. TX. 75202.4506 Dear Mr. Driscoll: 214,742.6944 You have requested our opinion regarding the authority of the 4624 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 Harris County Commissioners Court to refuse to approve the budget of El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 the Harris County Hospital District. 9151533-3464 The operation of the Harris County Hospital District is governed “‘I1 Texas, Suite 700 by article 4494n, V.T.C.S., which provides in section 8 the following: .auston. TX. 77002.3111 7131223.5666 Sec. 8. Once each year, as smn as practicable after the close of the fiscal yea=, the Administrator of the Hospital District shall 606 Broadway. Suite 312 report to the Board of Managers, the Commissioners Lubbock. TX. 79401.3479 6061747.5236 court, the State Board of Health and the State Comptroller a full sworn statement of all moneys and chases in action received by such 4309 N. Tenth, Suite B Administrator and how disbursed or otherwise McAllen, TX. 76501.1665 5121662.4547 disposed of. Such report shall show in detail the operations of the District for the term. Under the direction of the Board of Managers, he shall 200 Main Plaza. Suite 400 prepare an annual budget which shall be approved San Antonio. TX. 76205.2797 by the Board of Managers and shall then be 5121225-4191 presented to the Commissioners Court for final approval. In like manner all budget revisions An Equal Opportunity/ shall be subject to approval by the Commissioners Affirmative Action Employer court. (Emphasis added). In Attorney General Opinion MW-15 (1979), this office construed article 5142b, V.T.C.S., regarding the budget submitted by a juvenile board. That statute provided the following in pertinent part: Section 5. The compensation of all probation officers shall be fixed by the Juvenile Board p. 334 I Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 2 (JM-79) subject to the approval of the County Commis- sioners Court . . . . The opinion concluded that section 5 of article 5142b authorized the El Paso County Connnissioners Court to decline to approve a budget for compensation of juvenile probation officers submitted by the county juvenile board. In Attorney General Opinion H-908 (1976). this office held that salaries for assistants and investigators fixed by a prosecuting attorney must be approved by the commissioners court in order to become effective. The language of the statute was identical to that considered in Attorney General Opinion MW-15. The opinion noted: The relevant language of article 332a, section 5, is unambiguous and can be read in harmony with the entire statute without departing from its plain meaning. The statute makes prosecuting attorneys responsible for personnel matters -- hiring, removal and setting salaries and travel expenses . . . . It makes the commissioners court responsible for financial matters -- approving the prosecutors’ salary and travel expense proposals, and providing for office expenses . . . . In our CJpidJn, article 4494n is similar to the statutes construed in Attorney General Opinions MW-15 and H-908. It authorizes the administrator and board of managers of a hospital district to propose and submit a suggested budget. But it accords to the conrmissioners court the right of “final approval.” It has been suggested that two judicial decisions require a different result. Commissioners Court of Lubbock County v. Martin, 471 S.W.2d 100 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1971. writ ref’d n.r.e.), was discussed in Attorney General Opinion MW-15. That case, involving appointment of adult probation officers under section 10 of article 42.12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concluded that a commissioners court was not authorized to reject a budget submitted by a district judge unless the budget was so unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious as to amount to an abuse of discretion. Attorney General Opinion MW-15 declared: The language relating to the commissioners court’s duty in [Martin] was ambiguous, and... the courts relied on the rest of the act to ascertain the legislative intent. The statute specifically indicated that this purpose was to plSCe responsibility for probation supervision wholly within the state courts. There is neither a p. 335 Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 3 (JM-79) similar ambiguity in article 5142b nor similar language which would broaden the responsibility of the juvenile board. In Commissioners Court of Harris County v. Fullerton, 596 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. Civ. App. - Houston [lst Dist.] 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the Harris County- auditor had submitted an equipment budget to the commissioners court. The commissioners rejected specific items of equipment and reduced the budget by $380,000. The court held that, once the auditor makes a determination that a particular item of equipment is necessary for the proper functioning of his office, the commissioners must ministerially take the proper legal steps to provide that equipment "unless it finds that the county auditor abused his discretion." Id. at 576. The decision was based, however, on article 1650, V.T.C.S., which authorizes a county auditor "to provide himself with all necessary ledgers, books, records, blanks, stationary, equipment, telephones and postage at the county's expense." Under the court's reasoning in Fullerton, the commissioners court would be obliged to ministerially approve only those items in the hospital district's budget which article 4494n, or some other statute, specifically authorized. Since no statute specifically authorizes a hospital district to make the expenditures about which you inquire, we must conclude, on the authority of Attorney General Opinions MU-15 and H-908, that the commissioners court is the body ultimately responsible for the financial affairs of the county, and that, as such, it is empowered to reject any budget submitted by the hospital district. Nor do we believe that any statute requires the commissioners court to specify the reason for 1;s disapprovai. We make no determination, of course, regarding what is advisable in the interests of sound administrative practice. SUMMARY The commissioners court of Harris County, pursuant to its right of "final approval" of the budget of the Harris County Hospital District, is empowered to reject any budget submitted by the hospital district. J h Very truly JIM Attorney iA MATTOX yours General of Texas p. 336 Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 4 (JM-79) TOM GREEN First Assistant Attorney General DAVID R. RICHARDS Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared by Rick Gilpin Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Rick Gilpin, Chairman Jon Bible Susan Garrison Jim Moellinger Bruce Youngblood p. 337