. -
Honorable Henry Wade, Page 2 (WW-1107)
the bond of such depository. Thereafter
the officer may draw checks on the County
Treasurer to disburse said funds In the
ent of salariesand e
i%$,iy ;z,,o; I;,~;rne~;"?E~~~~
P # rp
whom said funds may b&on&. The Treasurer
and th depository shall make no payment
unless'such cheek 1% countersignedby .the
County Auditor. . . ." (Bnphaslsadded)
The underscoredsections of this statute do give the
County Treasurer authority to disburse funds in the pay-
ment of salaries and expenses. However, your situation
fulfills neither of the statutory requirements,I.e., the
deduction has not been "authorizedby law" In light of
reasoning to be set forth below, nor does lt~"belong" to
the Dallas County EinployeesCredit Union.
Cur research Indicatesthat there are only two Texas
statutes dealing with payroll deductions and both of them
apply only for apeclflc deduotlons.
Article 3.51 of the Insurance Code, Vernon's Civil
Statutes, allowa payroll deductions for employees' contrl-
butlons to group health Insurance policies. Attention la'
also directed to Attorney General's Opinion No. V-711 (1948)
which held that the deduction for this purpose was not the
function of the County Auditor, but should be performed by
the County Treasurer. We affirm this holding In that a stat-
ute waa passed to provide for such deductions,.and,under our
present interpretationof Article 1656a, sunra, the County
Treasurer 1% the one to make deductions In euch a case,
countersignedby the County Auditor.
Article 6252-3, Vernon's Civil Statute%, also author-
ize% deductions from employee%' salaries, but only for the
purpose of buying United States Savings Bonds.
Reference Is made to Subsection 10 of Article 2351 of
Vernon*6 Civil Statutes wherein the coIIplllssloner8'
court
shall:
-"Auditand settle all accounts
against the oounty and direct their
payment."
Honorable Henry Wade, Page.3 @W-1107)
Payment to the Credit Union would not be settling an account
"against the county" a% the Individual employee has areated
the obligationand not the county.
Since the commissioners'court ha% no express power to
make payroll deductions, It cannot rely on Its Implied power
for atithorlzlngthis type of dlsburaement. In Canales v.
Laughlin, 147 Tex. 169, 214 S.W.2d 451, 453 (l$FbJ, the
Supreme Court stated:
"The Constitutiondoes not confer ofi
the commissionerscourts 'generalauthor-
ltg over the county business' and such
courts can exercise only such powers as the
ConstitutionItself or the statutes have
'specificallyconferred upon them.'
While the commlsalonerscourt% have a'b&oid
discretion In exercisingpowers expressly
conferred on them, neverthelessthe legal
basis for any action by any such court must
be ultimately found In the Constitutionor
the statutes."
For other ca%es denying the u%e of Implied powers in
absence of a statute. see Iasater
- v.
._ Taoez.
-_=--, 110 Tnx
--- _---.
217 S.W. 373 (1919); Moon v. Alred, 277 Sk 787,(Clv'~~~
1925, error dism. w.0.j.); Hill v. Sterrett; 252 S.W.id 766
(Clv.App.1952, error ref. n.r.e.1.
Consequently,we must hold that the auditor or even the
treasurer~maynot make such deductions. The Legislaturehas
spoken twice regarding payroll deductionsland each time for
a specific purpose. In your situation such deductions are
not legal unless %peclflcallyauthorized by atatute.
SUMMARY
When an employee of Callas County
requests and authorizes a payroll
deduction to be paid to the Dallas
County Bnployees Credit Union, the
county auditor cannot legally make
such deductions In absence of a
statute, even If such acts are duly
Honorable Henry'Wade,Page 4 (WW-1107)
authorized by the Commleslonera~
court.
Yours very truly,
WILL WILSON
Attorney General oi'Texas
&g?&Q&Q
By:
Fred D. Ward
Assistant
FDW:mm:ms
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
Wlll.lsmE. Allen
Houghton Brownlee, Jr.
Raymond V. Loftin, Jr.
L. P. Lollar
REVIEWEDFORTHEATTORNEYOENERAL
BY: Morgan Nesbltt