, -
TEEAT&ZNEZY GENERAL
OF TEXAS
Auarrmv. TKXASI 7B7ll
September 30, 1977
The Honorable Bob Bullock Opinion No. H-1063
Comptroller of Public Accounts
State of Texas Re: Audit authority of the
Austin, Texas 78774 Comptroller.
Dear Mr. Bullock:
You seek our opinion as to whether you possess audit
authority under various statutes. Article 4344, V.T.C.S., pro-
vides:
Among other duties the Comptroller shall:
. . . .
3. Superintend the fiscal concerns of the
State, as the sole accounting officer
thereof, and manage the same in the manner
required by law.
Article 1.03, Taxation-General, provides:
The Comptroller shall have power at any
time to examine and check up all and any
expenditures of money appropriated for
any of the state institutions or for any
other purpose or for improvements made
by the State on State property or money
received and disbursed by any board autho-
rized by law to receive and disburse any
State money. The Comptroller shall also
have power and authority and it is hereby
made his duty, to fully investigate any
State institution when so directed by the
Governor or required by information coming
to his own knowledge. He shall investi-
gate the manner of conducting the same and
the policy pursued by those in charge
thereof, and the conduct or efficiency of
any person employed therein by the State.
He shall examine into and report upon the
p. 4560
The Honorable Bob Bullock - Page 2 (H-1063)
character and manner as well as the amount
of expenditures thereof, and investigate
and ascertain all sums of money due the
State from any source whatever, the ascer-
tainment and collection of which does not
devolve upon other officers of this State
under existing law; and he shall report all
such facts to the Governor. When the Comp-
troller, acting under the direction'of the
Governor, calls on any person connected
with the public service to inspect his
accounts, records or books, said person
so called upon shall submit to said agent
all books, records and accounts so called
for without delay.
In addition you call our attention to the following pro-
vision contained in both the 1975 and 1977 appropriations acts.
AUDITS. None of the appropriations herein
made shall be used to employ any firm or per-
son to audit the books of any department,
board, commission, institution or State agency,
this being the duty of the State Auditor. . . .
. . . .
Notwithstanding other provisions of this
Act, any state agency providing grants or
operating funds for governmental programs to
local governmental units, private corporations,
or other organizations other than a state agency
or a department, may require, as a condition to
granting or providing such funds, that the re-
ceiving entity have a yearly independent audit
performed and transmitted to the state agency.
If sufficient personnel are available, the
state agency may have its internal audit staff
make a yearly inspection visit to the local
entity.
General Appropriations Act, Acts 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 743, at
2860 - 2861. General Appropriations Act, 65th Leg., art. V,
s 30.
In essence, you inquire whether these provisions authorize
the Comptroller to exercise auditing authority over State agencies,
and if so, how certain practical problems with respect to such
audit authority should be resolved. We note that you inquire
p. 4561
-.
,
The Honorable Bob Bullock - Page 3 (H-1063)
about the kind of investigation the Comptroller may make on his
own motion, and not an investigation made at the Governor's
request. Consequently, we do not address the Comptroller's
authority when acting on the Governor's command.
Although article 1.03 has been modified on various occa-
sions, the basic language of the statute was enacted in 1899.
Acts 1899, 26th Leg., ch. 23, at 26. The office of State Auditor
was created 30 years later and was vested with broad auditing
powers, Acts 1929, 41st Leg., 1st called session, ch. 91, at
222. --
See also Acts 1943, 48th~Leg., ch. 293, at 429.
We believe the Legislature has manifested its intent
over the years that the function of auditing other agencies
belongs to the State Auditor. For example, the Legislature
which created the Office of State Auditor did not interpret
article 1.03 as providing the Comptroller with broad power to
audit other agencies. The emergency clause of the 1929 Act
establishing the Auditor's office and duties provided:
The fact that there is now no State Auditor
and no official designated to audit and
investigate the custodians of public funds
and the various departments of the State
Government create an emergency. . . .
Acts 1929, 41st Leg., 1st called session, ch. 91, at 225.
(Emphasis added). Additionally the appropriations act rider
quoted above clearly indicates the legislative understanding
that the basic audit authority is vested in the State Auditor.
The interpretation of a statute by a subsequent Legislature is
not controlling, but it is entitled to great weight. Texas-
Louisiana Power Co. v. City of Farmersville, 67 S.W.Zd 235
(Tex. Comm'n. App. 1933, jdgmt adopted); Neff v. Elgin, 270
S.W. 873 (Tex. Civ. App. -- San Antonio 1925, writ ref'd).
In 1948, the Attorney General addressed the effect the
creation of the State Auditor's Office had on other state
officers who had statutory authority to conduct audits. The
statute involved in that opinion was article 4400 which autho-
rized the Attorney General to make a monthly inspection of the
accounts of the Comptroller and Treasurer. Letter Opinion
R-1404 (1948) at 6 concluded:
It is apparent . . . that the duties
imposed upon the State Auditor and Ef-
ficiency Expert by the Act of 1929 and
upon the State Auditor by the Act of
p. 4562
The Honorable Bob Bullock - Page 4 (H-1063)
1943 included the duties imposed upon
the Attorney General by the first sentence
in Article 4400. It is our opinion the
effect of these Acts was to repeal the
above-mentioned sentence by implication.
Accordingly, we believe that the 1929 and 1943 legislation
removed any independent authority the Comptroller might have
previously had to initiate investigations and examinations of
the books and records of state agencies when those activities
would duplicate or parallel the duties of the State Auditor.
As far as we can determine, this interpretation has not been
questioned by prior Comptrollers. We believe this determina-
tion is reflected in the rider which prohibits agencies from
expending state funds for activities which are the responsibility
of the Auditor. See Attorney General Opinion M-1199 (1972) where
the same rider waxeld to be valid.
SUMMARY
The Comptroller of Public Accounts is not
authorized to conduct audits of other state
agencies when such audits would parallel
or duplicate the duties of the State Auditor.
Very truly yours,
APPROVED:
Y3sLLey
DAVID M. KENDALL, First SSiStant
C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman
Opinion Committee
p. 4563