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