Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

August 7, 1959 Honorable H. H. Wellborn Opinion No. WW-683 County Attorney Rusk County Re: Questions relating to Henderson, Texas the "Welfare and Pro- bation Office" of Dear Mr. Wellborn: Rusk County. In your brief of the case you have,outlined the following: "In 1935, the Commissioners Court of Rusk County, duly passed an order which was entered in the minutes, to this effect: ‘The Court engages the services of (naming the person) as Probation Of- for Rusk County; that said officers duties shall be that as enumerated in Art. 5142, of the R.C.S. 1925, and in addition that all relief or charity cases coming up for consideration to be handled through her of- fice, that the appointment shall be for a term of 2 years, etc.' "The party appointed at that time, did some work for the Sheriff and District At- torney's office, in the way of handling fe- male prisoners. But at least 99% of the work of the office was looking after charl- tY. Of late years, the 'Welfare Officers' have performed the charity provisions ex- clusively. Facts show the two welfare officers investigate cases of alleged needy persons and give 'orders' for groceries, medical and hospital attention, then pre- sent the bill to the County (Commissioners Court) who approve the bill, and pay them by drafts drawn on the County. ,- . Honorable H. H. Wellborn, page 2 (W-683) "Article 51391, Revised Civil Statutes, creates a 'Juvenile Board' for Rusk and Harrl- son Counties and the Juvenile Officer has been authorized by the Court, and we are now In the process of employing one under the statute above set out. "The Welfare bill of Rusk County last year was $63,000.00~~ Your first question is: "Does the 'Welfare and Probation Office' legally exist under the above facts?"~ It Is presumed that the Juvenile Officers appointed In 1935 were appointed under authority of the Acts of the 36th Legislature, Second Called Session, 1919, Chapter 51, page 130, codified as Article 5142 In Vernon's Civil Statutes., We would like to point out that this statute Is a general law apply- ing to all counties in general and was not limited to any specific county. The statute providing for a "juvenile board for Rusk and Harrison Counties" Is set up in the Acts of 1955, 54th Legislature, Regular Session, Chapter 106, page 385, and codified as Article 51393 of Vernon's Civil Statutes. This Is a special law covering the subject of juvenile boards and juvenile officers in Harrison and Rusk Counties. In the case styled Ssm Bassett Lumber Co. v. City of Houston, 145 Tex. 492, 198 9 S. .2 The general rule is that when the law msGs'a'genera1 provision, apparently for all cases, and a special provision for a parti- cular class, the general must yield to the spe- cial In so far as the particular class Is con- cerned. Perez v. Perez, 59 Tex. 322. This rule is based upon the principal that all acts and parts thereof must stand, If possible, each occupying its proper place; and that the lnten- tion of the Legislature Is more clearly reflected by a particular statute than by a general one. Accordingly, a specific act la properly regarded as an exception to, or qualification of, a gener- al law on the same subject previously enacted . . .'I See also Townsend v. Terrell, 118 Tex. 463, 16 S.W.2d 1063; Forwood v. City of Taylor, 147 Tex. 161, 214 S.W.2d 282 (1948). Honorable H. H. Wellborn, page 3 (~~-683) We would also point out that Section 4 of Article 51393 of Vernon's Civil Statutes, which Is the special law setting up the Juvenile Board in Rusk County, provides: All laws and parts of laws in con- flict herewith are repealed to the extent of such conflict." From the holding In the case just cited above, and from the repealing section of this Statute, It would seem that the general provisions of Article 5142 of Vernon's Civil Statutes as to appointment of juvenile officers is repealed and superseded by the provisions of Article 51393, which Is a special law and gives jurisdiction to the County Juvenile Board of Rusk County. We cannot find authority for the use of Juvenile Officers "to make investigations for charity in Rusk County." From an examination of Article 5142 of Vernon's Civil Stat- utes, it seems that the only counties where the extra duties of Juvenile Officers "shall be to make investigations for the Commissioners' Court on applications for charity" is In coun- ties having a population of 150,000 or more. No such extra duties are specified for counties having a lesser population, such as Rusk County. Therefore in answer to your first and third questions, you are advised that the Welfare and Probation Office will not legally exist and will be vacated by the provisions of Arti- cle 51393 when the Juvenile Board appoints new juvenile offl- cers. In answer to your other two questions, which read as follows: "2. Do the Welfare and Probations Officers (though doing nothing but welfare) have the power to purchase groceries, medicine and hospitiliza- tion for needy persons, whose needs, they alone determine, without prior authority to incur such Indebtedness, from the Commissioners Court?" “4. May the Commissioners Court delegate their authority, to provide for paupers and in- digent sick of the County, to the so called 'Welfare and Probation Officers' and will the County be obligated to pay suoh bills, such officers, to authorize these expenditures be- fore consulting the Court?" Honorable H. H. Wellborn, page 4 (WW-683) we point out the following: Section 11 of Article 2351 of Vernon's Civil Statutes, provides: %ach commissioners court shall: II. . . "11. Provide for the support of paupers and such idiots and lunatics as cannot be ad- mitted Into the lunatic asylum, residents of their county, who are unable to support them- selves. . . .' Section 18 of Article V of the Constitution of Texas reads in part: II. . . The County Commissioners so chosen, with the County Judge presiding officer, shall compose the County Commissioners Court, which shall exercise such powers and jurisdlatlon over all county business as is conferred by this Con- stitution and the laws of the State, or as may be hereafter prescribed." (Emphasis added.) The general rule is that County Commissioners Courts have no power, except that specially conferred by the Constl- tution or statute. v. Campbell, 48 S.W.2d 515 (Civ.App. Howard v. Hen on County,116 S.W.2d 479 (Civ.App. However, where a duty is Imposed or a power conferred by statute upon a commissioners court within the boundaries of power which the Constitution has created, then the commls- sloners court has implied authority to exerclse.broad dlscre- tion to accomplish purposes intended by such statute. El Paso County v. Elem, 106 S.W.2d 393 (Clv.App. 1937); Dodson v. Mar- shall 18 S W 2d 621 (Civ.App. 1938); Anderson v. Wood, 137 %&!O:, 152 S.W.2d 1084. The commlssloners court Is the general business and contracting agency of a county, and It alone has authority to make contracts binding on the county, unless otherwise specifically provided by-statute. Weir~v. Anderson County i61 S.W. 2d 322 (Civ.App. 1942). A contract between an individual and a county must be made through the agency of the commissioners court, or it Honorable H. H. Wellborn, page 5 (WW-683) is not binding on either party. Presidio County v. Clarke, 85 S.W. 475 (Clv.App. 1905). In the case of Gano, et al. v. Palo Pinto County, 71 Tex. 99, 8 S.W. 634, it is said: . . We think it the duty of these courts &&mnissioners Courtgto select themselves such agents as may be necessary to assist them In the discharge of their functions, when such agents have necessarily to exer- cise judgment and discretion in the per- formance of the work assigned them. The duty of making such selection should not be delegated. . . .~'I !Phelanguage of the above cited cases Indicate that the commissioners courts can select agents to assist them In county functions and may employ such oounty welfare workers as in-their discretion are necessary to achomplish the duties imposed on them by Section 11 of Artiale 2351, Vernon's Civil Statutes. In order for funds to pay a welfare worker and funds for relief to be available for the purposes set out under Section 11 of Article 2351, Vernon's Civil Statutes, the Com- missioners Court would have to so provide in its budget and designate such money for that purpose. The welfare worker could then contract for the expenditure of such welfare funds as directed by the Commissioners Court, but such contracts would be subject to the review and approval of the Conmission- ers Court before being payable by the County. You have referred to that portion of Attorney General's Opinion O-1919 (1940) which holds that "the Commissioners' Court is not authorized to employ a county welfare worker". That portion of that opinion is modified so far as It con- flicts with the holding of this opinion so as to conform to the holding of this opinion. SUMMARY The Acts of the 54th Legislature, 1955, chapter 106, page 385, codified as Artl- cle 51393, Vernon's Civil Statutes, super- sedes the Acts of the 36th Legislature, Second Called Session, 1919, page 130, codified as Article 5142 of Vernon's Civil Statutes, and future Juvenile Honorable H. H. Wellborn, page 6 (~~-683) Officers shall be appointed and dis- missed by the County Juvenile Board of Rusk County; and the Commissloners~ Court no longer has the power to ap- point or maintain Juvenile Officers appointed under the provisions of Article 5142, Vernon's Civil Statutes. The Commissioners Court may delegate their authority to provide for paupers and Indigent sick of the county to wel- fare workers, whose powers shall be to investigate and determine who are paup- ers and indigent sick persons and to contract for expenditure of budgeted funds for the relief of those persons who are qualified to receive them under Section 11 of Article 2351, Vernon's Civil Statutes, but all contracts so made are subject to the review and ap- proval of the Commissioners Court before becoming payable by the County. Yours very truly, WILL WILSON Attorney Qeneral of Texas QCR:zt:mfh APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE ffeo.P. Blackburn, Chairman Qrundy Wlllisms Bean I&via Paul W. Floyd, Jr. REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: Leonard Passmore