Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

- . February 26, 1953 Hon. Henry Wade Opinion No. S-12 District Attorney Records Building Re: Authority of the commls- Dallas, Texas sloners ' court to employ persons to work in each commissioner's precinct rather than allowing each oommleeloner to select Dear Sir: his precinct employees. You have requeated an opinion on the follow- ing questions: "Doe8 the Commisaionersl Court employ and approve by name the persons worktig in each Commissioner's precinct, or does It merely approve the position and allow the Commissioner of that precinct to employ and discharge whomever he ohoosee? . . . We would also like to know If this would apply to all elected offlcee." Section 4 of the Dallae County Road Law (Chap- ter 458, Acts 47th Legislature, Regular Session, 1941, page 729, a8 amended by Chapter 311, Acts 51st Leglsla- ture, Regular Sesslon~, 1949, page 579) provide8 in part: "The Commlseloneret Court shall have, and is hereby given, authority to employ, and discharge all persons neceesary to per- form all the provldloiae of thie Act;" In construing the provisions of Section 4 of the Dallas County Road Law, it is stated in HIM v. Sterrett, 252 S.W.2d 766 (Tex.Clv.App. 1952, error ref. -that the authority placed In the Commissioners' Court is cumulative of the authority already vested In It by Section 18 of Article V of the Constitution of Texas and Article 2351, Vernon48 Civil Statutes, for hiring employees relative to county bualness, Hon. Henry Wade, page 2 (S-12) Whenever e power is Vested in the Commissioners’ Court, the authority must be exeroised by the court as a unit and not by the IndlvlduELl commissioners. Stovall v. Shivers, 129 Tex. 256, 103 SIW.2d 363 (1937 ; lt!ZXkZ 147 Tex. 169 214 S.W.2d 451 (194 B);Rowan +f--ws 237 S.W.2d 734 (Tex.Clv.App. 1951). It stated in iowan v, Plckett at page 737: “That the Commissioners I Court Is some- thing more than the Individuals composing :, the body Is no longer an open question. “‘By Article 2342 of the Revised Stat- utes, It 18 provlded that the several com- missioners, together with the county judge, shall compose the “comrnl8slonera court ,” Such court is manifestly a unit, and Is the agency of the whole county. The respective members of the commiesloners court are therefore prlmarlly representatives of the whole county, and not merely representa- tives of their respective precincts. The duty of the commissioners court is to trans- act the business, protect the Interests, and promote the welfare of the county as a whole. t Stovall v. Shivers, 129 Tex. 256, 103 S.W.2d 363, 366. ‘And, as stated more recently by the Texas~Supreme Court in Cenalee v. Laughlin, 147 Tex. 169, 214 S.W.2d 451, 455; ‘Further- more, the individual oommlrrlonera have no authorIt. to bind the county by their aeparate action.’ ’ Since the authority to employ persons neces- sary to carry out the provisions of the Dallas County Road Law is placed in the Commissioners Court of Dallas County, it is our opinion that the Individuals must be employed by the Commissioners Court acting as a unit rather than being employed by individual cbmmissioners. Referring to the portlon of your question asking “If this would apply to a11 elected offices”, we assume that you refer to the method of appointment of deputies, assistants, or clerks of district, count,y, and precinct officers. , !; -- -. - Hon. Henry wade, page 3 (S-12) The Legislature has oonslstently provided that the deputies, assistants, or--_clerks of _-- various districts, county and precinct officer8 wlu De ap- pointed by the ofricer whom the assistant, deputy, or olerk will assist. Articles 324-331b; 3902; 3912e, Sec. 19; 39126-2; 39126-4; 3912e-4a; 3912e-4b; 3912e- 40, V.C.S. In construing the provisions of Article 3902, it 1s stated in Neeper v.. Stewart, 66 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. Clv.App. 1933, error ref.): “A public policy Is thereby manl- fested In oase of county and precinct of- ficers generally to empower such officer to select their deputies or assistants and to forbid the commissioner’s court, or any member thereof, from attempting to Influence such officers In their selection of asslst- ants. The reason for this policy la obvious. Officers elected to discharge public trusts, and upon whom the responslbillty for the proper discharge thereof rests, should be free to select persons of their own choice to assist them in Its discharge.” We, therefore, agree with your conclusion that, unless covered by some special statute applicable to a particular office, elected officers other than county commissioners may appoint their own deputies, assistants, or clerks without submitting the names of the appointees to the oommlssloners~ court for approval. SUMMARY Individuals employed pursuant to the provisions of the Dallas County Road Law must be employed by the Commissioners1 Court of Dallas County, acting as a unit, rather than being employed by lndlvldual oonunlesloners. Elected oif'loera, other than county commissioners, may appoint their omr deputies, assistants, or clerks without submitting the names of the appointees to the Commissioners aourt for approval. . . - . Hon. Henry Wade, page 4 (S-12) Yours very truly, APPROVED: JOHNBEN SHEPPERD Attorney General J. C. Davis, Jr. County Affairs Division Willis E. Gresham Reviewer Assistant Robert S. Trotti First Assistant John Ben Shepperd Attorney General JR:am