.\TTDRIY~Y ~T.xlcx I.37 .,.,* December 9, 1976
The Honorable Knute L. Dietze Opinion No. H-908
Criminal District Attorney
Victoria County Courts Building Re: Authority of the
Victoria, Texas 77901 commissioners court to
veto the salaries budgeted
The Honorable W.T. McDonald, Jr. by the criminal district
District Attorney attorney and submit its
Brazes County own budget.
Bryan, Texas 77801
The Honorable Roland M. Seprcy
County Attorney
Brazos County
Bryan, Texas 77801
Gentlemen:
Mr. Dietze asks the following question:
Once the Victoria County Criminal District
Attorney employs his assistants and
fixes the salaries of his assistants and
investigators, does the commissioners
court have the authority to veto the
budget as set by the Criminal District
Attorney and submit [its] own budget.
Mr. McDonald asks essentially the same question with respect
to the district attorney of the 85th Judicial District. Mr.
Searcy asks whether the commissioners court may veto the
county attorney's budget.
Article 332a, V.T.C.S.,~ which authorizes prosecuting
attorneys (defined to include county attorneys, district
attorneys and criminal district attorneys) to employ assistants,
investigators and other personnel, provides:
P. 3809
I
.
The Honorable Knute L. Dietze
The Honorable W. T. McDonald, Jr.
The Honorable Roland M. Searcy - page 2 (H-908)
Sec. 5. Salaries of assistant prosecuting
attorneys, investigators, secretaries and
other office personnel shall be fixed by the
prosecuting attorney, subject --
to the approval
of
-- the commissioners court of the county or
the counties composing district.
Sec. 6. Assistant prosecuting attorneys
and investigators, in addition to their
salaries, may be allowed actual and necessary
travel expenses incurred in the discharge of
their duties, not to exceed the amount fixed
by the prosecuting attorney and approved &
the commissioners court of the county or the
Z&ties cornosin
ror trave~s~~~~~-fr~~lt~ims
General Fund, Officers' Salary Fund, or any
other available funds of the county.
(Emphasis added).
The answer to the question depends on the interpretationof
the underlined language of section 5. In construing statutes,
the ordinary meaning shall be applied to words. V.T.C.S.
art. 10, S 1. “Subject to” is defined as follows:
[Slubordinate . . . obedient to; governed
or affected by . . . . Black's Law
Dictionary 1594 (4th ed. 1951).
"Subject," used as an adjective, is defined as
likely to be conditioned, affected or
modified in some indicated way: having
a contingent relation to something and
usu[allyJ dependent on such relation for
final form, validity, or significance.
Webster's Third International Dictionary
2275.
P. 3810
The Honorable Knute L. Dietze
The Honorable W. T. McDonald, Jr.
The Honorable Roland M. Searcy - page 3 (H-908)
We believe that the salaries set by the criminal district
attorney, district attorney, or county attorney are not
final, but conditioned upon the approval of the commissioners
court. The commissioners may disapprove the salaries, and
therefore can be said to have veto power over that part of
the district attorney's budget. Section 6 permits travel
expenses in an amount fixed by the prosecuting attorney and
approved by the commissioners court. This reiteration of
the approval requirement indicates that its inclusion in
section 5 was not inadvertent, and that it is a necessary
step in determining major expenditures.
It is suggested that our interpretation of article 332a
should follow judicial constructions of language in article
42.12, section 10, Code of Criminal Procedure.
[T]he district judges . . . are authorized,
with
-- the advice and consent of the commissioners
court as hereinafter providec toemploy . . .
and fixthe salaries of probation officers. . . .
(Emphasis aaaedj.
This provision requires that the judges merely consult with
the commissioners on county finances, while the commissioners
must buduet the money so long as the expenditures are necessary
and reasonable. Coa-&ssioners Court of-Lubbock County v. -
Martin, 471 S.W.Zd 100 (Tex. Civ. AppT-- Amarillo 1971,writ
ref'd n.r.e.). Constructions of article 42.12, section 10,
however, do not control article 332a, section 5, which
consists of different language in a different context.
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.
V.T.C.S. art. 332a, SS 2, 4, 5, 6. It makes the commissioners
court responsible for financial matters -- approving the
prosecutors' salary and travel expense proposals, and providing
for office expenses. -Id. 55 5, 6, 7.
p. 3811
,-~. .
. .
The Honorable Knute L. Dietze
The Honorable W. T. McDonald, Jr.
The Honorable Roland M. Searcy - page 4 (H-908)
Article 3912k, V.T.C.S., which concerns salaries of
certain county employees, does not apply to the salaries
about which you inquire. Article 332a is the more specific
statute, was enacted later in time, and repeals conflicting
laws. V.T.C.S. art. 332a, S 9. Article 3912k does not in
any case apply to the employees of a district attorney. -See
Attorney General Opinion H-656 (1978).
We conclude that the commissioners court may refuse to
approve the salaries proposed by the Victoria County Criminal
District Attorney, or the District Attorney or County Attorney
of Bryan County.
SUMMARY
The salaries for assistants and investi-
gators fixed by a district attorney,
criminal district attorney, or county
attorney must be,approved by the
commissioners court in order to become
effective.
Very truly yours,
Attorney General of Texas
Opinion Committee
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion