Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS __---- - Aus~x~ H. TEXAS I Afkirmed by..~...:3~~-. February 4, 1964 - I Honorable Henry Wade Opinion No. C-213 District Attorney Dallas County Re: Under the provisions Dallas, Texas of Article 68lqa-25a, V.C.S., *does the com- missioners court have discretion in determin- ing the amount of ad- ditional compensation to be paid from county funds to visiting dis- trict judges who are assigned to sit by the presiding judge of the administrative judicial Dear Mr. Wade: district. You have requested the opinion of this office as to whether . the . Commissioners . . Court of Dallas County has dlscre- won unaer me provisions of Article 681ga-25a, Vernon's Civil Statutes, in det,erminingthe amount of additional com- pensation to be paid from county funds to visiting District Judges who are assigned to sit in Dallas County by the Presid- ing Judge of the First Administrative Judicial District. Section 1 of Article 68lqa-25a, Vernon's Civil Statutes, reads as follows: "In any county In this state having a population of five hundred thousand (500,000) or more according to the last preceding Federal Census and having five (5) or more Civil Dis- trict Courts and two (2) or more Criminal Dis- trict Courts, the judges of the several District, Criminal District, Domestic Relations and Juve- nile Courts of such counties shall receive, In addition to the salary paid by the state to them, and to other District Judges of this state, the sum of Six Thousand Dollars ($~,ooo.oo) an- nually, to be paid in equal monthly installments out of the General Fund or Officers' Salary Fund of such counties. The Commissioners Court shall make proper budget provisions for the payment -1026- Hon. Henry Wade, page 2 (c-213) thereof. Any District Judge of the state who may be assigned to sit for the Judge of any District Court in such counties under the provisions of Article 200-A, Revised Civll,Statutes, may, while so~servlng, re- ceive an addition to his necessary expenses, additional compensation from county funds in an amount not to exceed the difference between the pay of such visiting judge from all sources by District Judges in the counties affected by the provisions ,of this Act, such amount to be paid by the 'countyupon approval of the pre- siding judge in which said court is located," At the same session of the Legislature which enacted the preceding statute, Article 200a, Vernon's Civil Statutes, was amended,to provide a per diem of $25.00 ,perday for visiting judges. Article 200a provided that the per.diem allowance was to be paid in addition to and cumulative of all other compen- sation and expenses authorized by law for visiting judges. This amendment operated to change the payment from actual ex- penses to a flat rate of $25.00 per day, and provides that this per diem is to be 'paidupon c,ertificateof approval by the Chief Justice or by the Presiding Judge'of the Administrative &Micial District. These approval provisions were the same as those contalned in the,statute in qkestion, Article 681ga+a, at the time Attorney General's Opinion V-1111 was written. Attorney General's Opinion No. V-1111 (1950) answered the question as to whether the county auditor or the commis- sioners court had authority to review and approve the expense accounts of visiting judges under Article 200a, Vernon's Civil Statutes. In that opinion it was held that the general statutes which,provide for review and approval of claims presented against the county did not apply to expense accounts submitted by vislt- ing district judges and certified and approved by the presiding judge of the administrative district. The opinion further states: I, It is our opinion that the Legis- lature inte;ded to substitute the approval of the presiding judge in lieu of that of the com- missioners' court and county auditor. "You are therefore advised that such ex- pense accounts atiesubject to audit and review by the presiding judge of the administrative district only." -1027- Hon. Henry Wade, page 3 (C-213) Article 681ga-25a places the question of approval squarely and solely on the pre,sidingjudge of the county in which said court is located. It does not mention approval by the commissioners court. In view of such silence, and particularly in view of the prior Attorney General's opinion on the subject, It Is the opinion of this office that the Com- missioners Court of.Dallas County, Texas, does not have author- ity or discretion to determine what additional compensation shall be paid to visiting District Judges assigned to sit In Dallas County by the Presiding Judge of the First Administra- tive Judicial District. Such discretion is vested by the statute In the said Presiding Judge and may only be exercls- ed by him. SUMMARY Article 681ga-25a, Vernon's Civil Statutes, vests in the presiding judge of the adminlstrati,vejudicial district discretion in approving the amount of additional compensation to be paid from county funds to visiting judges who are assigned to sit within the administrative judicial district. The commissioners court has no dls- cretion in approving any payment under Article 681ga-25a, Vernon's Civil Statutes. Yours very truly, WAGGONER CARR Attorney General ~Y~dd~& . MLQ:ms Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE W. V. Geppert, Chairman John Reeves James M. Strock Edward R. Moffett Bob Flowers APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL By: Stanton Stone -1028-