Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

. . OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN Honorablet. L. 3kelba Caanty Andttor Johnoon County Olobum, Texas We hero yaw lette ing the oplalon of thlr dopa tlon and rnforrlfbg to oar 0 read8 lo perk es tslloua: -, -.. . - 267 Renorable E. L, Shelton, tide 2 publie neoe8aity iavolred In l&i8 instame. I oould olte you to othefa bat will not a8 y&u know thea better than I. The war wae on when the budget wa8 made therefore that aannot be olalued aa tmforeeeen and this in the allega- tiell. Again ribat hop I to do xlth Artiole Ro. .1666 of the Revised Civil Statutes. If it 18 penaiesible to amend the budget just to oarry a point or aati8Sy a whim this Artiale had just es well be dfsearded. . ... .l* . . As we oaderstaadyow request,the eoramiaafaners~ ochrt of JohueonCounty h&a amaded the. budget of mid oounty to take oar0 or oertalo inorea8e8 0r salary for oertain oouuty oriioiale. ‘It b our furtbr uaderatapding that it ie your eontentfoo #at aa there were na pro~l’si?m oontained ti the 0riglna.lootuity badgetnha it rao prwpr&3 to take oar0 0r eanp fnorease in clalarfea to oounty 0rri0iars that the 84md oamot now be amendad. Th%e depart&ant ha8 repeatedly held that the qime- tfon or wgrave Bob110 neoeeeity” 18 a faot question to be Qetennfned piGmrlly by tlm oom&~o~on~ra~ oourt, It is ap parent f~~akyotlr .lettar that you3 position i8 -t&at 00 mggrave publio mpessity* existed at tha tiaa the oounty budget wad amdad a0 take oar0 or bneaee in salaries ior atu%aln OC?Unty orr%OfahI fAEd tb!3mrOrO the OOIWI~~S~OIIO~~' Oowt WE423 uuauthorfead~ to mke suoh masndmnt~ However, oa the other hand it la’apperent ttit the oaamisalosers~ aaart did doaide that they were legally ciutkorlrsd ta aaand the oaunty budget mia ln fast did amend aaid budget. This ilopartaent has held (Opinion iio. O-2325) that the diaoretion of the oomnls8loaerr* ootlllt 16 not ab+alute. zlfirft to expend oounty run48 ia the pas6 0r tui eaw~eftoy, 13:ml* only where the question 58 debatable or where the exlrtdnae oi an em) onoy is tmWe8tionable. Rower, aaid eowt ha8 no author T tp to deter&m aad dealam ,that M energonoy @,atar anb expend eountp fw~I8 therefor, where the raats olearly’8haw the oontrazy. SmWoourt haa ao legnl au- thority to dearare an ei&rgeney and evade th8 law, where in tact, no emrgeaoy ddbat8. ’ our.opl.nlen Ho, C-log3 deflnee the term8 asraver nnd “publlo neaemftf t se enalofte a oopy 0r this spin100 . .. - Iionorable Z, L. Shelton, agO 3 r0g your oonvenfenoe. %here the exiaten6s of gmve publio neoessity i8 debatable, the aota of the oommis8ioners* OQurt are oontrolling , Therefore, as above stated, it is our opin- ion that whether or not the oocmissioners* aourt of fohn~+on County baa the authority to amend the oounty budget under the raota submitted is a raot question to be determined primarily by the oomaiosioners’ oowt, Yours 7el-y truly Ardell Wilifeuna As&&ant AWmp -01. . -